Israel Shahak - Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight Of Three Thousand Years

Israel Shahak

Jewish History,
Jewish Religion

The Weight of Three Thousand Years

Foreword by Gore Vidal

AAARGH

Internet

2005

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

First published 1994 by Pluto Press345 Archway Road, London N6 5AA,
United Kingdomand 5500 Central Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 80301, USA
ISBN 0-7453-0818-X

ISBN 0 7453 0818 X

French edition by La Vieille Taupe and German edition, online
on the AAARGH website.

AAARGH

http://aaargh.com.mx

http://vho.org/aaai-gh

http://litek.ws/aaargh

Mail

aaarghinternational @ hotmail.com

To follow the misadventures of the site, the newsletter in French
elrevisionista@ vahoo.com.ar

The AAARGH quarterlies, in six languages
http://geocities.com/ilrestodelsiclo

Contents:

Foreword by Gore Vidal
A Closed Utopia?

Prejudice and Prevarication
Orthodoxy and Interpretation
The Weight of History
The Laws against Non-Jews
Political Consequences
Notes and References
Index

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Foreword

Sometime in the late 1950s, that world-class gossip and occasional historian,
John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been pretty much
abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American
Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle-stop
campaign train. 'That's why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.' As
neither Jack nor I was an antisemite (unlike his father and my grandfather) we took
this to be just another funny story about Truman and the serene corruption of
American politics.

Unfortunately, the hurried recognition of Israel as a state has resulted in forty-
five years of murderous confusion, and the destruction of what Zionist fellow
travellers thought would be a pluralistic state - home to its native population of
Muslims, Christians and Jews, as well as a future home to peaceful European and
American Jewish immigrants, even the ones who affected to believe that the great
realtor in the sky had given them, in perpetuity, the lands of Judea and Sameria.
Since many of the immigrants were good socialists in Europe, we assumed that they
would not allow the new state to become a theocracy, and that the native Palestinians
could live with them as equals. This was not meant to be. I shall not rehearse the wars
and alarms of that unhappy region. But I will say that the hasty invention of Israel
has poisoned the political and intellectual life of the USA, Israel's unlikely patron.

Unlikely, because no other minority in American history has ever hijacked so
much money from the American taxpayers in order to invest in a 'homeland'. It is as
if the American taxpayer had been obliged to support the Pope in his reconquest of
the Papal States simply because one third of our people are Roman Catholic. Had this
been attempted, there would have been a great uproar and Congress would have said
no. But a religious minority of less than two per cent has bought or intimidated
seventy senators (the necessary two thirds to overcome an unlikely presidential veto)
while enjoying support of the media.

In a sense, I rather admire the way that the Israel lobby has gone about its
business of seeing that billions of dollars, year after year, go to make Israel a 'bulwark
against communism'. Actually, neither the USSR nor communism was ever much of a
presence in the region. What America did manage to do was to

[viii] turn the once friendly Arab world against us. Meanwhile, the misinformation
about what is going on in the Middle East has got even greater and the principal
victim of these gaudy lies - the American taxpayer to one side - is American Jewry, as
it is constantly bullied by such professional terrorists as Begin and Shamir. Worse,
with a few honorable exceptions, Jewish-American intellectuals abandoned

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

liberalism for a series of demented alliances with the Christian (antisemtic) right and
with the Pentagon-industrial complex. In 1985 one of them blithely wrote that when
Jews arrived on the American scene they 'found liberal opinion and liberal politicians
more congenial in their attitudes, more sensitive to Jewish concerns' but now it is in
the Jewish interest to ally with the Protestant fundamentalists because, after all, "is
there any point in Jews hanging on dogmatically, hypocritically, to their opinions of
yesteryear?' At this point the American left split and those of us who criticised our
onetime Jewish allies for misguided opportunism, were promptly rewarded with the
ritual epithet 'antisemite' or 'self-hating Jew'.

Fortunately, the voice of reason is alive and well, and in Israel, of all places.
From Jerusalem, Israel Shahak never ceases to analyse not only the dismal politics of
Israel today but the Talmud itself, and the effect of the entire rabbinical tradition on a
small state that the right-wing rabbinate means to turn into a theocracy for Jews
only. I have been reading Shahak for years. He has a satirist's eye for the confusions
to be found in any religion that tries to rationalise the irrational. He has a scholar's
sharp eye for textual contradictions. He is a joy to read on the great Gentile-hating Dr
Maimonides.

Needless to say, Israel's authorities deplore Shahak. But there is not much to be
done with a retired professor of chemistry who was born in Warsaw in 1933 and
spent his childhood in the concentration camp at Belsen. In 1945, he came to Israel;
served in the Israeli military; did not become a Marxist in the years when it was
fashionable. He was - and still is - a humanist who detests imperialism whether in the
names of the God of Abraham or of George Bush. Equally, he opposes with great wit
and learning the totalitarian strain in Judaism. Like a highly learned Thomas Paine,
Shahank illustrates the prospect before us, as well as the long history behind us, and
thus he continues to reason, year after year. Those who heed him will certainly be
wiser and - dare I say? - better. He is the latest, if not the last, of the great prophets.

Gore Vidal

[1]

4

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Chapter 1

A Closed Utopia?

I write here what I think is true, for the stories of the Greeks are
numerous and in my opinion ridiculous ;
Hecateus of Miletis, as quoted by Herodotus.

Amicus Plato sed magis arnica veritas . — Plato is a friend but truth is

a greater friend.

Traditional paraphrase of a passage of Aristotele’s Ethics

In a free state every man can think what he wants and say what he

thinks

Spinoza

THIS BOOK, although written in English and addressed to people living
outside the State of Israel, is, in a way, a continuation of my political activities as an
Israeli Jew. Those activities began in 1965-6 with a protest which caused a
considerable scandal at the time: I had personally witnessed an ultra-religious Jew
refuse to allow his phone to be used on the Sabbath in order to call an ambulance for
a non-Jew who happened to have collapsed in his Jerusalem neighbourhood. Instead
of simply publishing the incident in the press, I asked for a meeting which is
composed of rabbis nominated by the State of Israel. I asked them whether such
behavior was consistent with their interpretation of the Jewish religion. They
answered that the Jew in question had behaved correctly, indeed piously, and backed
their statement by referring me to a passage in an authoritative compendium of
Talmudic laws, written in this century. I reported the incident to the main Hebrew
daily, Ha'aretz, whose publication of the story caused a media scandal.

The results of the scandal were, for me, rather negative. Neither the Israeli, nor
the diaspora, rabbinical authorities ever reversed their ruling that a Jew should not
violate the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Gentile. They added much
sanctimonious twaddle to the effect that if the consequence of such an act puts Jews
in danger, the violation of the Sabbath is permitted, for their sake. It became
apparent to me, as drawing on Talmudic laws governing the relations between Jews
and non-Jews, that neither Zionism, including its seemingly secular part,

[2] nor Israeli politics since the inception of the State of Israel, nor particularly the
policies of the Jewish supporters of Israel in the diaspora, could be understood unless
the deeper influence of those laws, and the worldview which they both create and
express is taken into account. The actual policies Israel pursued after the Six Day

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

War, and in particular the apartheid character of the Israeli regime in the Occupied
Territories and the attitude of the majority of Jews to the issue of the rights of the
Palestinians, even in the abstract, have merely strengthened this conviction.

By making this statement I am not trying to ignore the political or strategic
considerations which may have also influenced the rulers of Israel. I am merely
saying that actual politics is an interaction between realistic considerations (whether
valid or mistaken, moral or immoral in my view) and ideological influences. The
latter tend to be more influential the less they are discussed and 'dragged into the
light'. Any form of racism, discrimination and xenophobia becomes more potent and
politically influential if it is taken for granted by the society which indulges in it. This
is especially so if its discussion is prohibited, either formally or by tacit agreement.
When racism, discrimination and xenophobia is prevalent among Jews, and directed
against non-Jews, being fueled by religious motivations, it is like its opposite case,
that of antisemitism and its religious motivations. Today, however, while the second
is being discussed, the very existence of the first is generally ignored, more outside
Israel than within it.

Defining the Jewish State

Without a discussion of the prevalent Jewish attitudes to non-Jews, even the
concept of Israel as 'a Jewish state', as Israel formally defines itself, cannot be
understood. The widespread misconception that Israel, even without considering its
regime in the Occupied Territories, is a true democracy arises from the refusal to
confront the significance of the term 'a Jewish state' for non-Jews. In my view, Israel
as a Jewish state constitutes a danger not only to itself and its inhabitants, but to all
Jews and to all other peoples and states in the Middle East and beyond. I also
consider that other Middle Eastern states or entities which define themselves as
'Arab' or 'Muslim', like the Israeli self-definition as being 'Jewish', likewise constitute
a danger. However, while this danger is widely discussed, the danger inherent in the
Jewish character of the State of Israel is not.

[31

The principle of Israel as 'a Jewish state' was supremely important to Israeli
politicians from the inception of the state and was inculcated into the Jewish
population by all conceivable ways. When, in the early 1980s, a tiny minority of
Israeli Jews emerged which opposed this concept, a Constitutional Law (that is, a law
overriding provisions of other laws, which cannot be revoked except by a special
procedure) was passed in 1985 by an enormous majority of the Knesset. By this law
no party whose programme openly opposes the principle of 'a Jewish state' or
proposes to change it by democratic means, is allowed to participate in the elections
to the Knesset. I myself strongly oppose this constitutional principle. The legal
consequence for me is that I cannot belong, in the state of which I am a citizen, to a
party having principles with which I would agree and which is allowed to participate
in Knesset elections. Even this example shows that the State of Israel is not a
democracy due to the application of a Jewish ideology directed against all non-Jews
and those Jews who oppose this ideology. But the danger which this dominant
ideology represents is not limited to domestic affairs. It also influences Israeli foreign
policies. This danger will continue to grow, as long as two currently operating

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

developments are being strengthened: the increase in the Jewish character of Israel
and the increase in its power, particularly in nuclear power. Another ominous factor
is that Israeli influence in the USA political establishment is also increasing. Hence
accurate information about Judaism, and especially about the treatment of non-Jews
by Israel, is now not only important, but politically vital as well.

Let me begin with the official Israeli definition of the term 'Jewish', illustrating
the crucial difference between Israel as 'a Jewish state' and the majority of other
states. By this official definition, Israel 'belongs' to persons who are defined by the
Israeli authorities as 'Jewish', irrespective of where they live, and to them alone. On
the other hand, Israel doesn't officially 'belong' to its non-Jewish citizens, whose
status is considered even officially as inferior. This means in practice that if members
of a Peruvian tribe are converted to Judaism, and thus regarded as Jewish, they are
entitled at once to become Israeli citizens and benefit from the approximately 70 per
cent of the West Bank land (and the 92 per cent of the area of Israel proper), officially
designated only for the benefit of Jews. All non-Jews ( not only all Palestinians) are
prohibited from benefiting from those lands. (The prohibition applies even to Israeli
Arabs who served in the Israeli army and reached a high rank.) The case involving
Peruvian converts to Judaism actually occurred a few years ago. The newly-created
Jews were settled in

[4] the West Bank, near Nablus, on land from which non-Jews are officially excluded.
All Israeli governments are taking enormous political risks, including the risk of war,
so that such settlements, composed exclusively of persons who are defined as 'Jewish'
(and not 'Israeli' as most of the media mendaciously claims) would be subject to only
'Jewish' authority.

I suspect that the Jews of the USA or of Britian would regard it as antisemitic if
Christians would propose that the USA or the United Kingdom should become a
'Christian state', belonging only to citizens officially defined as 'Christians'. The
consequence of such doctrine is that Jews converting to Christianity would become
full citizens because of their conversion. It should be recalled that the benefits of
conversions are well known to Jews from their own history. When the Christian and
the Islamic states used to discriminate against all persons not belonging to the
religion of the state, including the Jews, the discrimination against Jews was at once
removed by their conversion. But a non-Jew discriminated against by the State of
Israel will cease to be so treated the moment he or she converts to Judaism.This
simply shows that the same kind of exclusivity that is regarded by a majority of the
diaspora Jews as antisemitic is regarded by the majority of all Jews as Jewish. To
oppose both antisemitism and Jewish chauvinism is widely regarded among Jews as
a 'self-hatred', a concept which I regard as nonsensical.

The meaning of the term 'Jewish' and its cognates, including 'Judaism', thus
becomes in the context of Israeli politics as important as the meaning of 'Islamic',
when officially used by Iran, or 'communist' when it was officially used by the USSR.
However, the meaning of the term 'Jewish' as it is popularly used is not clear, either
in Hebrew or when translated into other languages, and so the term had to be defined
officially.

According to Israeli law a person is considered 'Jewish' if either their mother,

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother were Jewesses by
religion; or if the person was converted to Judaism in a way satisfactory to the Israeli
authorities, and on condition that the person has not converted from Judaism to
another religion, in which case Israel ceases to regard them as 'Jewish'. Of the three
conditions, the first represents the Talmudic definition of 'who is a Jew', a defintion
followed by Jewish Orthodoxy. The Talmud and post-Talmudic rabbinic law also
recognise the conversion of a non-Jew to Judaism (as well as the purchase of a non-
Jewish slave by a Jew followed by a different kind of conversion) as a method of
becoming Jewish, provided that the conversion is performed by authorised rabbis in
a proper manner. This 'proper manner'

[5] entails for females, their inspection by three rabbis while naked in a 'bath of
purification', a ritual which, although notorious to all readers of the Hebrew press, is
not often mentioned by the English media in spite of its undoubted interest for
certain readers. I hope that this book will be the beginning of a process which will
rectify this discrepancy.

But there is another urgent necessity for an official definitionof who is, and who
is not 'Jewish'. The State of Israel officially discriminates in favour of Jews and
against non-Jews in many domains of life, of which I regard three as being most
important: residency rights, the right to work and the right to equality before the law.
Discrimination in residency is based on the fact that about 92 per cent of Israel's land
is the property of the state and is administered by the Israel Land Authority
according to regulations issued by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), and affiliate of
the World Zionist Organization. In its regualtions the JNFdenies the right to reside,
to open a business, and often to work, to anyone who is not Jewish, only because he is
not Jewish. At the same time, Jews are not prohibited from taking residence or
opening businesses anywhere in Israel. If applied in another state against the Jews,
such discriminatory practice would instantly and justifiably be labelled antisemitism
and would no doubt spark massive public protests. When applied by Israel as a part
of its 'Jewish ideology', they are usually studiously ignored or excused when rarefy
mentioned.

The denial of the right to work means that non-Jews are prohibited officially
from working on land administered by the Israel Land Authority according to the
JNF regulations. No doubt these regulations are not always, or even often, enforced
but they do exist. From time to time Israel attempts enforcement campaigns by state
authorities, as, for example, when the Agriculture Ministry acts against 'the pestilence
of letting fruit orchards belonging to Jews and situated on National Land [i.e., land
belonging to the State of Israel] be harvested by Arab labourers', even if the labourers
in question are citizens of Israel. Israel also strictly prohibits Jews settled on
'National Land' to sub-rent even a part of their land to Arabs, even for a short time;
and those who do so are punished, usually by heavy fines. There is no prohibitions on
non-Jews renting their land to Jews. This means, in my own case, that by virtue of
being a Jew I have the right to lease an orchard for harvesting its produce from
another Jew, but a non-Jew, whether a citizen of Israel or a resident alien, does not
have this right.

Non-Jewish citizens of Israel do not have the right to equality before the law.
This discimination is expressed in many

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

[6] Israeli laws in which, presumably in order to avoid embarressment, the terms
'Jewish' and 'non-Jewish' are usually not explicitly stated, as they are in the crucial
Law of Return. According to that law only persons officially recognised as 'Jewish'
have an automatic right of entry to Israel and of settling in it. They automatically
receive an 'immigration certificate' which provides them on arrival with 'citizenship
by virtue of having returned to the Jewish homeland', and with the right to many
financial benefits, which vary somewhat according to the country from which they
emmigrated. The Jews who emigrate from the states of the former UUSR receive 'an
absorption grant' of more than $20,000 per family. All Jews immigrating to Israel
accordingthis law immediately acquire the right to vote in elections and to be elected
to the Knesset — even if they do not speak a word of Hebrew.

Other Israeli laws substitute the more obtuse expressions 'anyone who can
immigrate in accordance with the Law of Return' and 'anyone who is not entitled to
immigrate in accordance with the law of Return'. Depending onthe law in questionm
benefits are them grantedto the first category and systematically denied to the
second. The routine means for enforcing discrimination in everyday life is the ID
card, which everyone is obliged to carry at all times. ID cards list the official
'nationality' of a person, which can be 'Jewish', 'Arab', 'Druze' and the like, witah the
significant exception of 'Israeli'. Attempts to force the Interior Minister to allow
Israelis wishing to be officially described as 'Israeli', or even as 'Israeli-Jew' in their
ID cards have failed. Those who have attempted to do so have a letter from the
Ministry of the Interior stating that 'it was decided not to recognise an Israeli
nationality'. The letter does not specify who made this decision or when.

There are so many laws and regulations in Israel which discriminate in favour of
the persons defined in Israel as those 'who can immigrate in accordance with the Law
of Return' that the subject demands seperate treatment. We can look here at one
example, seemingly trivial in comparison with residence restrictions, but
nevertheless important since it reveals the real intentions of the Israeli legislator.
Israeli citizens who left the country for a time but who are defined as those who 'can
immigrate in accordance with the Law of Return' are eligible on their return to
generous customs benefits, to receive subsidy for their children's high school
education, and to receive either a grant or a loan on easy terms for the purchase of an
apartment, as well as other benefits. Citizens who cannot be so defined, in other
words, the non-Jewish citizens of Israel, get none of these benefits. The obvious
intention of such discriminatory measures

[7] is to decrease the number of non-Jewish citizens of Israel, in order to make Israel
a more 'Jewish' state.

The Ideology of ’Redeemed' Land

Israel also propagates among its Jewish citizens an exclusivist ideology of the
Redemption of Land. Its official aim of minimizing the number of non-Jews can be
well perceived in this ideology, which is inculcated to Jewish schoolchildren in Israel.
They are taught that it is applicable to the entire extent of either the State of Israel or,
after 1967, to what is referred to as the Land of Israel. According to this ideology, the
land which has been 'redeemed' is the land which has passed from non-Jewish
ownership to Jewish ownership. The ownership can be either private, or belong to

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

either the JNF or the Jewish state. The land which belongs to non-Jews is, on the
contrary, considered to be 'unredeemed'. Thus, if a Jew who committed the blackest
crimes which can be imagined buys a piece of land from a virtuous non-Jew, the
'unredeemed' land becomes 'redeemed' by such a transaction. However, if a virtuous
non-Jew purchases land from the worst Jew, the formerly pure and 'redeemed' land
becomes 'unredeemed' again. The logical conclusion of such an ideology is the
expulsion, called 'transfer', of all non-Jews from the area of land which has to be
'redeemed'. Therefore the Utopia of the 'Jewish ideology' adopted by the State of
Israel is a land which is wholly 'redeemed' and none of it is owned or worked by non-
Jews. The leaders of the Zionist labour movement expressed this utterly repellent
idea with the greatest clarity. Walter Laquer a devoted Zionist, tells in his History of
Zionism (1) how one of these spiritual fathers, A.D. Gordon, who died in 1919,
'objected to violence in principle and justified self defence only in extreme
circumstances. But he and his friends wanted every tree and bush in the Jewish
homeland to be planted by nobody else except Jewish pioneers'. This means that they
wanted everybody else to just go away and leave the land to be 'redeemed' by Jews.
Gordon's successors added more violence than he intended but the principle of
'redemption' and its consequences have remained.

In the same way, the kibbutz, widely hailed as an attempt to create a Utopia,
was and is an exclusivist Utopia; even if it is composed of atheists, it does not accent
Arab members on principle and demands that potential members from other
nationalities be first converted to Judaism. No wonder the kibbutz boys can be
regarded as the most militaristic segment of the Israeli jewish society.

It is this exclusivist ideology, rather than all the 'security

[8] needs' alleged by Israeli propaganda, which determines the takeovers of land in
Israel in the 1950s and again in the mid-1960s and in the Occupied Territories after
1967. This ideology also dictated official Israeli plans for 'the Judaizition of Galilee'.
This curious term means encouraging Jews to settle in Galilee by giving them
financial benefits. (I wonder what would be the reaction of US Jews if a plan for 'the
Christianization of New York' or even only of Brooklyn, would be proposed in their
country.) But the Redemption of the Land implies more than regional 'Judaization'.
In the entire area of Israel the JNF, vigorously backed by Israeli state agencies
(especially by the secret police) is spending great sums of public money in order to
'redeem' any land which non-Jews are willing to sell, and to preempt any attempt by a
Jew to sell his land to a non-Jew by paying him a higher price.

Israeli Expansionism

The main danger which Israel, as 'a Jewish state', poses to its own people, to
other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial
expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim. The more Israel
becomes Jewish or, as one says in Hebrew, the more it 'returns to Judaism' (a process
which has been under way in Israel at least since 1967), the more its actual politics
are guided by Jewish ideological considerations and less by rational ones. My use of
the term 'rational' does not refer here to a moral evaluation of Israeli policies, or to
the supposed defence or security needs of Israel - even less so to the supposed needs
of 'Israeli survival'. I am referring here to Israeli imperial policies based on its

10

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

presumed interests. However morally bad or politically crass such policies are, I
regard the adoption of policies based on 'Jewish ideology', in all its different versions
as being even worse. The ideological defence of Israeli policies are usually based on
Jewish religious beliefs or, in the case of secular Jews, on the 'historical rights' of the
Jews which derive from those beliefs and retain the dogmatic character of religious
faith.

My own early political conversion from admirer of Ben-Gurion to his dedicated
opponent began exactly with such an issue. In 1956 I eagerly swallowed all of Ben-
Gurion's political and military reasons for Israel initiating the Suez War, until he (in
spite of being an atheist, proud of his disregard of the commandments of Jewish
religion) pronounced in the Knesset on the third day of that war, that the real reason
for it is 'the restoration of the kingdom of David and Solomon' to its Biblical borders.
At this point in his speech, almost every Knesset

[9] member spontaneously rose and sang the Israeli national anthem. To my
knowledge, no zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli
policies must be based (within the limits of pragmatic considerations) on the
restoration of the Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state. Indeed, close
analysis of Israeli grand strategies and actual principles of foreign policy, as they are
expressed in Hebrew, makes it clear that it is 'Jewish ideology', more than any other
factor, which determines actual Israeli policies. The disregard of Judaism as it really
is and of 'Jewish ideology' makes those policies incomprehensible to foreign
observers who usually know nothing about Judaism exept crude apologetics.

Let me give a more recent illustration of the essential difference which exists
between Israeli imperial planning of the most inflated but secular type, and the
principles of 'Jewish ideology'. The latter enjoins that land which was either ruled by
any Jewish ruler in ancient times or was promised by God to the Jews, either in the
Bible or - what is actually more important politically - according to a rabbinic
interpretation of the Bible and the Talmud, should belong to Israel since it is a Jewish
state. No doubt, many Jewish 'doves' are of the opinion that such conquest should be
deferred to a time when Israel will be stronger than it is now, or that there would be,
hopefully, a 'peaceful conquest', that is , that the Arab rulers or peoples would be
'persuaded' to cede the land in question in return for benefits which the Jewish state
would then confer on them.

A number of discrepant versions of Biblical borders of the Land of Israel, which
rabbinical authorities interpret as ideally belonging to the Jewish state, are in
circulation. The most far-reaching among them include the following areas within
these borders: in the south, all of Sinai and a part of nothern Egypt up to the environs
of Cairo; in the east, all of Jordan and a large chunk of Saudi Arabia, all of Kuwait and
a part of Iraq south of the Euphrates; in the north, all of Lebanon and all of Syria
together with a huge part of Turkey (up to lake Van); and in the west, Cyprus. An
enormous body of research and learned discussion based on these borders, embodied
in atlases, books, articles and more popular forms of propaganda is being published
in Israel, often with state subsidies, or other forms of support. Certainly the late
Kahane and his followers, as will as influential bodies such as Gush Emunim, not only
desire the conquest of those territories by Israel, but regard it as a divinely
commanded act, sure to be successful since it will be aided by God. In fact, important

11

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Jewish religious figures regard the Israeli refusal to undertake such a holy war, or
even

[10] worse, the return of Sinai to Egypt, as a national sin which was justly punished
by God. One of the more influential Gush Emunim rabbis, Dov Lior, the rabbi of
Jewish settlements of Kiryat Arba and of Hebron, stated repeatedly that the Israeli
failure to conquer Lebanon in 1982-5 was a well-merited divine punishment for its
sin of 'giving a part of Land of Israel', namely Sinai, to Egypt.

Although I have chosen an admittedly extreme example of the Biblical borders
of the Land of Israel which 'belong' to the 'Jewish state', those borders are quite
popular in national-religious circles. There are less extreme versions of Biblical
borders, sometimes also called 'historical borders'. It should however be emphasized
that within Israel and the community of its diaspora Jewish supporters, the validity
of the concept of either Biblical borders or historical borders as delineating the
bordrers of land which belongs to Jews by right is not denied on grounds of principle,
except by the tiny minority which opposes the concept of a Jewish state. Otherwise,
objections to the realisation of such borders by a war are purely pragmatical. One can
claim that Israel is now too weak to conquer all the land which 'belongs' to the Jews,
or that the loss of Jewish lives (but not of Arab lives!) entailed in a war of conquest of
such magnitude is more important than the conquest of the land, but in normative
Judaism one cannot claim that 'the Land of Israel', in whatever borders, does not
'belong' to all the Jews. In May 1993, Ariel Sharon formally proposed in the Likud
Convention that Israel should adopt the 'Biblical borders' concept as its official policy.
There were rather few objections to this proposal, either in the Likud or outside it,
and all were cased on pragmaic grounds. No one even asked Sharon where exactly are
the Biblical borders which he was urging that Israel should attain. Let us recall that
among those who call themselves Leninists there was no doubt that history follows
the principles laid out by Marx and Lenin. It is not only the belief itself, however
dogmatic, but the refusal that it should ever be doubted, by thwarting open
discussion, which creates a totalitarian cast of mind. Israeli-Jewish society and
diaspora Jews who are leading 'Jewish lives' and organised in purely Jewish
organisations, can be said therefore to have a strong streak of totalitarianism in their
character.

However, an Israeli grand strategy, not based on the tenets of 'Jewish ideology',
but based on purely strategic or imperial considerations had also developed since the
inception of the state. An authoriative and lucid description of the principles
governing such strategy was given by General (Reserves) Shlomo Gazit, a former
Military Intelligence commander. (2) According to Gazit,

[n]

"Israel's main task has not changed at all [since the demise of the USSR] and it
remains of crucial importance. The geographical location of Israel at the centre of
the Arab-Muslim Middle East predestines Israel to be a devoted guardian of stability
in all the countries surrounding it. Its [role] is to protect the existing regimes: to
prevent or halt the processes of radicalization, and to block the expansion of
fundamentalist religious zealtory.

For this purpose Israel will prevent changes occuring beyond Israel's borders

12

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

[which it] will regard as intolerable, to the point of feeling compelled to use all its
military power for the sake of their prevention or eradication."

In other words, Israel aims at imposing a hegemony on other Middle Eastern
states. Needless to say, according to Gazit, Israel has a benevolent concern for the
stability of the Arab regimes. In Gazit's view, by protecting Middle Eastern regimes,
Israel performs a vital service for 'the industrially advanced states, all of which are
keenly concerned with guaranteeing the stability in the Middle East'. He argues that
without Israel the existing regimes of the region would have collapsed long ago and
that they remain in existence only because of Israeli threats. While this view may be
hypocritical, one should recall in such contexts La Rochefoucault's maxim that
'hypocrisy is the tax which wickedness pays to virtue'. Redemption of the Land is an
attempt to evade paying any such tax.

Needless to say, I also oppose root and branch the Israeli non-ideological
policies as they are so lucidly and correctly explained by Gazit. At the same time, I
recognize that the dangers of the policies of Ben-Gurion of Sharon, motivated by
'Jewish ideology', are much worse than merely imperial policies, however criminal.
The results of policies of other ideologically motivated regimes point in the same
direction. The existence of an important component of Israeli policy, which is based
on 'Jewish ideology', makes its analysis politically imperative. This ideology is, in turn
based on the attitudes of historic Judaism to non-Jews, one of the main themes of
this book. Those attitudes necessarily influence many Jews, consciously or
unconciously. Our task here is to discuss historic Judaism in real terms.

The influence on 'Jewish ideology' on many Jews will be stronger the more it is
hidden from public discussion. Such discussion will, it is hoped, lead people take the
same attitude towards Jewish chauvinism and the contempt displayed by so many
Jews towards non-Jews (which will be documented below) as that commonly taken
towards antisemitism and all other forms of xenophobia, chauvinism and racism. It is
justly

[12] assumed that only the full exposition, not only of antisemitism, but also of its
historical roots, can be the basis of struggle against it. Likewise I am assuming that
only the full exposition of Jewish chauvinism and religious fanaticism can be the
basis of struggle against those phenomena. This is especially true today when,
contrary to the situation prevailing fifty or sixty years ago, the political influence of
Jewish chauvinism and religious fanaticism is much greater than that of
antisemitism. But there is also another important consideration. I strongly believe
that antisemitism and Jewish chauvinism can only be fought simultaneously.

A Closed Utopia?

Until such attitudes are widely adopted, the actual danger of Israeli policies
based on 'Jewish ideology' remains greater than the danger of policies based on
purely strategic considerations. The difference between the two kinds of policies was
well expressed by Hugh Trevor-Roper in his essay Sir Thomas More and Utopia (3)
in which he termed them Platonic and Machiavellian:

"Machiavelli at least apologized for the methods which he thought necessary in

13

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

politics. He regretted the necessity of force and fraud and did not call them by any
other name. But Plato and More sanctified them, provided that they were used to
sustain their own Utopian republics."

In a similiar way true believers in that Utopia called the 'Jewish state', which
will strive to achieve the 'Biblical borders', are more dangerous than the grand
strategists of Gazit's type because their policies are being sanctified either by the use
of religion or, worse, by the use of secularized religious principles which retaim
absolute validity. While Gazit at least sees a need to argue that the Israel diktat
benefits the Arab regimes, Ben-Gurion did not pretend that the re-establishment of
the kingdom of David and Solomon will benefit anybody except the Jewish state.

Using the concepts of Platonism to analyse Israeli policies based on 'Jewish
ideology' should not seem strange. It was noticed by several scholars, of whom the
most important was Moses Hadas, who claimed that the foundations of 'classical
Judaism', that is, of Judaism as it was established by talmudic sages, are based on
Platonic influences and especially on the image of Sparta as it appears in Plato. (4)
According to Hadas, a crucial feature of the Platonic political system, adopted by
Judaism as early as the Maccabean period (142-63 BC), was 'that every phase of
human conduct be subject to religious sanctions which are in fact to be manipulated
by the ruler'.

[13] There can be no better definition of 'classical Judaism' and of the ways in which
the rabbis manipulated it than this Platonic definition. In particular, Hadas claims
that Judaism adopted what 'Plato himself summarized [as] the objectives of his
program', in the following well-known passage:

"The principle thing is that no one, man or woman, should ever be without an
officer set over him, and that none should get the mental habit of taking any step,
whether in earnest or in jest, on his individual responsibility. In peace as in war he
must live always with his eyes on his superior officer... In a word, we must train the
mind not to even consider acting as an invidual or know how to do it." (Laws, 942 ab)

If the word 'rabbi' is substituted for 'an officer' we will have a perfect image of
classical Judaism. The latter is still deeply influencing Israeli-Jewish society and
determing to a large extent the Israeli policies.

It was the above quoted passage which was chosen by Karl Popper in The Open
Society and Its Enemies as describing the essence of 'a closed society'. Historical
Judaism and its two successors, Jewish Orthodoxy and Zionism, are both sworn
enemies of the concept of the open society as applied to Israel. A Jewish state,
whether based on its present Jewish ideology or, if it becomes even more Jewish in
character than it is now, on the principles of Jewish Orthodoxy, cannot ever contain
an open society. There are two choices which face Israeli-Jewish society. It can
become a fully closed and warlike ghetto, a Jewish Sparta, supported by the labour of
Arab helots, kept in existence by its influence on the US political establishment and
by threats to use its nuclear power, or it can try to become an open society. The
second choice is dependent on an honest examination of its Jewish past, on the

14

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

admission that Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism exist, and on an honest
examination of the attitudes of Judaism towards the non-Jews.

[14]

Chapter 2

15

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Prejudice and Prevarication

The first difficulty in writing about this subject is that the term 'Jew' has been
used during the last 150 years with two rather different meanings. To understand
this, let us imagine ourselves in the year 1780. Then the universally accepted meaning
of the term 'Jew' basically coincided with what the Jews themselves understood as
constituting their own identity. This identity was primarily religious, but the precepts
of religion governed the details of daily behavior in all aspects of life, both social and
private, among the Jews themselves as well as in their relation to non-Jews. It was
then literally true that a Jew could not even drink a glass of water in the home of a
non-Jew. And the same basic laws of behavior towards non-Jews were equally valid
from Yemen to New York. Whatever the term by which the Jews of 1780 may be
described - and I do not wish to enter into a metaphysical dispute about terms like,
'nation' and 'people' (1) - it is clear that all Jewish communities at that time were
separate from the non-Jewish societies in the midst of which they were living.

However, all this was changed by two parallel processes - beginning in Holland
and England, continuing in revolutionary France and in countries which followed the
example of the French Revolution, and then in the modern monarchies of the 19th
century: the Jews gained a significant level of individual rights (in some cases full
legal equality), and the legal power of the Jewish community over its members was
destroyed. It should be noted that both developments were simultaneous, and that
the latter is even more important, albeit less widely known, than the former.

Since the time of the late Roman Empire, Jewish communities had considerable
legal powers over their members. Not only powers which arise through voluntary
mobilization of social pressure (for example refusal to have any dealing whatsoever
with an excommunicated Jew or even to bury his body), but a power of naked
coercion: to flog, to imprison, to expel - all this could be inflicted quite legally on an
individual Jew by the rabbinical courts for all kinds of offenses. In many countries -
Spain and Poland are notable examples - even capital punishment could be and was
inflicted, sometimes using particularly cruel methods such as flogging to death. All
this was not only

[15] permitted but positively encouraged by the state authorities in both Christian
and Muslim countries, who besides their general interest in preserving 'law and
order' had in some cases a more direct financial interest as well. For example, in
Spanish archives dating from the 13th and 14th centuries there are records of many
detailed orders issued by those most devout Catholic Kings of Castile and Aragon,
instructing their no less devout officials to co-operate with the rabbis in enforcing
observance of the Sabbath by the Jews. Why? Because whenever a Jew was fined by a
rabbinical court for violating the Sabbath, the rabbis had to hand nine tenths of the
fine over to the king - a very profitable and effective arrangement. Similarly, one can
quote from the responsa written shortly before 1832 by the famous Rabbi Moshe
Sofer of Pressburg (now Bratislava), in what was then the autonomous Hungarian
Kingdom in the Austrian Empire, and addressed to Vienna in Austria proper, where
the Jews had already been granted some considerable individual rights. ( 2 ) He
laments the fact that since the Jewish congregation in Vienna lost its powers to
punish offenders, the Jews there have become lax in matters of religious observance,

16

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

and adds: 'Here in Pressburg, when I am told that a Jewish shopkeeper dared to open
his shop during the Lesser Holidays, I immediately send a policeman to imprison
him.'

This was the most important social fact of Jewish existence before the advent of
the modern state: observance of the religious laws of Judaism, as well as their
inculcation through education, were enforced on Jews by physical coercion, from
which one could only escape by conversion to the religion of the majority, amounting
in the circumstances to a total social break and for that reason very impracticable,
except during a religious crisis. ( 3 )

However, once the modern state had come into existence, the Jewish
community lost its powers to punish or intimidate the individual Jew. The bonds of
one of the most closed of 'closed societies', one of the most totalitarian societies in the
whole history of mankind were snapped. This act of liberation came mostly from
outside; although there were some Jews who helped it from within, these were at first
very few. This form of liberation had very grave consequences for the future. Just as
in the case of Germany (according to the masterly analysis of A.J.P. Taylor) it was
easy to ally the cause of reaction with patriotism, because in actual fact individual
rights and equality before the law were brought into Germany by the armies of the
French Revolution and of Napoleon, and one could brand liberty as 'un-German',
exactly so it turned out to be very easy among the Jews, particularly in Israel, to
mount a very effective

[16] attack against all the notions and ideals of humanism and the rule of law (not to
say democracy) as something 'un-Jewish' or 'anti-Jewish' - as indeed they are, in a
historical sense - and as principles which may be used in the 'Jewish interest', but
which have no validity against the 'Jewish interest', for example when Arabs invoke
these same principles. This has also led - again just as in Germany and other nations
of Mitteleuropa - to a deceitful, sentimental and ultra-romantic Jewish
historiography, from which all inconvenient facts have been expunged.

So one will not find in Hannah Arendt's voluminous writings, whether on
totalitarianism or on Jews, or on both, (4) the smallest hint as to what Jewish society
in Germany was really like in the 18th century: burning of books, persecution of
writers, disputes about the magic powers of amulets, bans on the most elementary
'non-Jewish' education such as the teaching of correct German or indeed German
written in the Latin alphabet. Nor can one find in the numerous English-language
'Jewish histories' the elementary facts about the attitude of Jewish mysticism (so
fashionable at present in certain quarters) to non-Jews: that they are considered to
be, literally, limbs of Satan, and that the few non-satanic individuals among them
(that is, those who convert to Judaism) are in reality 'Jewish souls' who got lost when
Satan violated the Holy Lady (Shekhinah or Matronit, one of the female components
of the Godhead, sister and wife of the younger male God according to the cabbala) in
her heavenly abode. The great authorities, such as Gershom Scholem, have lent their
authority to a system of deceptions in all the 'sensitive' areas, the more popular ones
being the most dishonest and misleading.

But the social consequence of this process of liberalization was that, for the first
time since about AD 200, (6) a Jew could be free to do what he liked, within the

17

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

bounds of his country's civil law, without having to pay for this freedom by converting
to another religion. The freedom to learn and read books in modern languages, the
freedom to read and write books in Hebrew not approved by the rabbis (as any
Hebrew or Yiddish book previously had to be), the freedom to eat non-kosher food,
the freedom to ignore the numerous absurd taboos regulating sexual life, even the
freedom to think - for 'forbidden thoughts' are among the most serious sins - all these
were granted to the Jews of Europe (and subsequently of other countries) by modern
or even absolutist European regimes, although the latter were at the same time
antisemitic and oppressive. Nicholas I of Russia was a notorious antisemite and
issued many laws against the Jews of his state. But he also strengthened the forces of
'law and order' in

[17] Russia - not only the secret police but also the regular police and the
gendarmerie - with the consequence that it became difficult to murder Jews on the
order of their rabbis, whereas in pre-1795 Poland it had been quite easy. 'Official'
Jewish history condemns him on both counts. For example, in the late 1830s a 'Holy
Rabbi' ( Tzadik ) in a small Jewish town in the Ukraine ordered the murder of a
heretic by throwing him into the boiling water of the town baths, and contemporary
Jewish sources note with astonishment and horror that bribery was 'no longer
effective' and that not only the actual perpetrators but also the Holy Man were
severely punished. The Metternich regime of pre-1848 Austria was notoriously
reactionary and quite unfriendly to Jews, but it did not allow people, even liberal
Jewish rabbis, to be poisoned. During 1848, when the regime's power was
temporarily weakened, the first thing the leaders of the Jewish community in the
Galician city of Lemberg (now Lvov) did with their newly regained freedom was to
poison the liberal rabbi of the city, whom the tiny non-Orthodox Jewish group in the
city had imported from Germany. One of his greatest heresies, by the way, was the
advocacy and actual performance of the Bar Mitzvah ceremony, which had recently
been invented.

Liberation from Outside

In the last 150 years, the term 'Jew' has therefore acquired a dual meaning, to
the great confusion of some well-meaning people, particularly in the English-
speaking countries, who imagine that the Jews they meet socially are 'representative'
of Jews 'in general'. In the countries of east Europe as well as in the Arab world, the
Jews were liberated from the tyranny of their own religion and of their own
communities by outside forces, too late and in circumstances too unfavorable for
genuine internalized social change. In most cases, and particularly in Israel, the old
concept of society, the same ideology - especially as directed towards non-Jews - and
the same utterly false conception of history have been preserved. This applies even to
some of those Jews who joined 'progressive' or leftist movements. An examination of
radical, socialist and communist parties can provide many examples of disguised
Jewish chauvinists and racists, who joined these parties merely for reasons of 'Jewish
interest' and are, in Israel, in favor of 'anti-Gentile' discrimination. One need only
check how many Jewish 'socialists' have managed to write about the kibbutz without
taking the trouble to mention that it is a racist institution from which non-Jewish
citizens of Israel are rigorously excluded, to see that

[18] the phenomenon we are alluding to is by no means uncommon. (7)

18

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Avoiding labels based on ignorance or hypocrisy, we thus see that the word
'Jewry' and its cognates describe two different and even contrasting social
groups, and because of current Israeli politics the continuum between the two is
disappearing fast. On the one hand there is the traditional totalitarian meaning
discussed above; on the other hand there are Jews by descent who have internalized
the complex of ideas which Karl Popper has called 'the open society'. (There are also
some, particularly in the USA, who have not internalized these ideas, but try to make
a show of acceptance.)

It is important to note that all the supposedly 'Jewish characteristics' - by which
I mean the traits which vulgar so-called intellectuals in the West attribute to 'the
Jews' - are modern characteristics, quite unknown during most of Jewish history, and
appeared only when the totalitarian Jewish community began to lose its power. Take,
for example, the famous Jewish sense of humor. Not only is humor very rare in
Hebrew literature before the 19th century (and is only found during few periods, in
countries where the Jewish upper class was relatively free from the rabbinical yoke,
such as Italy between the 14th and 17th centuries or Muslim Spain) but humor and
jokes are strictly forbidden by the Jewish religion - except, significantly, jokes against
other religions. Satire against rabbis and leaders of the community was never
internalized by Judaism, not even to a small extent, as it was in Latin Christianity.
There were no Jewish comedies, just as there were no comedies in Sparta, and for a
similar reason. (8) Or take the love of learning. Except for a purely religious learning,
which was itself in a debased and degenerate state, the Jews of Europe (and to a
somewhat lesser extent also of the Arab countries) were dominated, before about
1780, by a supreme contempt and hate for all learning (excluding the Talmud and
Jewish mysticism). Large parts of the Old Testament, all nonliturgical Hebrew
poetry, most books on Jewish philosophy were not read and their very names were
often anathematized. Study of all languages was strictly forbidden, as was the study of
mathematics and science. Geography, ( 9 ) history - even Jewish history - were
completely unknown. The critical sense, which is supposedly so characteristic of
Jews, was totally absent, and nothing was so forbidden, feared and therefore
persecuted as the most modest innovation or the most innocent criticism.

It was a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism and ignorance, a
world in which the preface to the first

[19] work on geography in Hebrew (published in 1803 in Russia) could complain that
very many great rabbis were denying the existence of the American continent and
saying that it is 'impossible'. Between that world and what is often taken in the West
to 'characterize' Jews there is nothing in common except the mistaken name.

However, a great many present-day Jews are nostalgic for that world, their lost
paradise, the comfortable closed society from which they were not so much liberated
as expelled. A large part of the Zionist movement always wanted to restore it - and
this part has gained the upper hand. Many of the motives behind Israeli politics,
which so bewilder the poor confused western 'friends of Israel', are perfectly
explicable once they are seen simply as reaction, reaction in the political sense which
this word has had for the last two hundred years: a forced and in many respects
innovative, and therefore illusory, return to the closed society of the Jewish past.

19

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Obstacles to Understanding

Historically it can be shown that a closed society is not interested in a
description of itself, no doubt because any description is in part a form of critical
analysis and so may encourage critical 'forbidden thoughts'. The more a society
becomes open, the more it is interested in reflecting, at first descriptively and then
critically, upon itself, its present working as well as its past. But what happens when a
faction of intellectuals desires to drag a society, which has already opened up to a
considerable extent, back to its previous totalitarian, closed condition? Then the very
means of the former progress - philosophy, the sciences, history and especially
sociology - become the most effective instruments of the 'treason of the intellectuals'.
They are perverted in order to serve as devices of deception, and in the process they
degenerate.

Classical Judaism (10) had little interest in describing or explaining itself to the
members of its own community, whether educated (in talmudic studies) or not. (11) It
is significant that the writing of Jewish history, even in the driest annalistic style,
ceased completely from the time of Josephus Flavius (end of first century) until the
Renaissance, when it was revived for a short time in Italy and in other countries
where the Jews were under strong Italian influence. (12) Characteristically, the rabbis
feared Jewish even more than general history, and the first modern book on history
published in Hebrew (in the 16th century) was entitled History of the Kings of
France and of the Ottoman Kings. It was followed by some histories dealing only
with the persecutions that

[20] Jews had been subjected to. The first book on Jewish history proper (13)
(dealing with ancient times) was promptly banned and suppressed by the highest
rabbinical authorities, and did not reappear before the 19th century. The rabbinical
authorities of east Europe furthermore decreed that all non-talmudic studies are to
be forbidden, even when nothing specific could be found in them which merits
anathema, because they encroach on the time that should be employed either in
studying the Talmud or in making money - which should be used to subsidize
talmudic scholars. Only one loophole was left, namely the time that even a pious Jew
must perforce spend in the privy. In that unclean place sacred studies are forbidden,
and it was therefore permitted to read history there, provided it was written in
Hebrew and was completely secular, which in effect meant that it must be exclusively
devoted to non-Jewish subjects. (One can imagine that those few Jews of that time
who - no doubt tempted by Satan - developed an interest in the history of the French
kings were constantly complaining to their neighbors about the constipation they
were suffering from ...) As a consequence, two hundred years ago the vast majority of
Jews were totally in the dark not only about the existence of America but also about
Jewish history and Jewry's contemporary state; and they were quite content to
remain so.

A Totalitarian History

There was however one area in which they were not allowed to remain self-
contented - the area of Christian attacks against those passages in the Talmud and
the talmudic literature which are specifically anti-Christian or more generally anti-
Gentile. It is important to note that this challenge developed relatively late in the

20

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

history of Christian-Jewish relations - only from the 13th century on. (Before that
time, the Christian authorities attacked Judaism using either Biblical or general
arguments, but seemed to be quite ignorant as to the contents of the Talmud.) The
Christian campaign against the Talmud was apparently brought on by the conversion
to Christianity of Jews who were well versed in the Talmud and who were in many
cases attracted by the development of Christian philosophy, with its strong
Aristotelian (and thus universal) character. (14)

It must be admitted at the outset that the Talmud and the talmudic literature -
quite apart from the general anti-Gentile streak that runs through them, which will be
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5 - contain very offensive statements and
precepts directed specifically against Christianity. For example, in addition to a series
of scurrilous sexual allegations

[21] against Jesus, the Talmud states that his punishment in hell is to be immersed in
boiling excrement - a statement not exactly calculated to endear the Talmud to
devout Christians. Or one can quote the precept according to which Jews are
instructed to burn, publicly if possible, any copy of the New Testament that comes
into their hands. (This is not only still in force but actually practiced today; thus on
23 March 1980 hundreds of copies of the New Testament were publicly and
ceremonially burnt in Jerusalem under the auspices of Yad Le'akhim, a Jewish
religious organization subsidized by the Israeli Ministry of Religions.)

Anyway, a powerful attack, well based in many points, against talmudic Judaism
developed in Europe from the 13th century. We are not referring here to ignorant
calumnies, such as the blood libel, propagated by benighted monks in small
provincial cities, but to serious disputations held before the best European
universities of the time and on the whole conducted as fairly as was possible under
medieval circumstances. (15)

What was the Jewish - or rather the rabbinical - response? The simplest one was
the ancient weapon of bribery and string-pulling. In most European countries, during
most of the time, anything could be fixed by a bribe. Nowhere was this maxim more
true than in the Rome of the Renaissance popes. The Editio Princeps of the complete
Code of Talmudic Law, Maimonides' Mishneh Torah - replete not only with the most
offensive precepts against all Gentiles but also with explicit attacks on Christianity
and on Jesus (after whose name the author adds piously, 'May the name of the
wicked perish') - was published unexpurgated in Rome in the year 1480 under Sixtus
IV, politically a very active pope who had a constant and urgent need for money. (A
few years earlier, the only older edition of The Golden Ass by Apuleius from which the
violent attack on Christianity had not been removed was also published in Rome.)
Alexander VI Borgia was also very liberal in this respect.

Even during that period, as well as before it, there were always countries in
which for a time a wave of anti-Talmud persecution set in. But a more consistent and
widespread onslaught came with the Reformation and Counter Reformation, which
induced a higher standard of intellectual honesty as well as a better knowledge of
Hebrew among Christian scholars. From the 16th century, all the talmudic literature,
including the Talmud itself, was subjected to Christian censorship in various
countries. In Russia this went on until 1917. Some censors, such as in Holland, were

21

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

more lax, while others were more severe; and the offensive passages were expunged
or modified.

[ 22 ]

All modern studies on Judaism, particularly by Jews, have evolved from that
conflict, and to this day they bear the unmistakable marks of their origin: deception,
apologetics or hostile polemics, indifference or even active hostility to the pursuit of
truth. Almost all the so-called Jewish studies in Judaism, from that time to this very
day, are polemics against an external enemy rather than an internal debate.

It is important to note that this was initially the character of historiography in
all known societies (except ancient Greece, whose early liberal historians were
attacked by later sophists for their insufficient patriotism!). This was true of the early
Catholic and Protestant historians, who polemicized against each other. Similarly, the
earliest European national histories are imbued with the crudest nationalism and
scorn for all other, neighboring nations. But sooner or later there comes a time when
an attempt is made to understand one's national or religious adversary and at the
same time to criticize certain deep and important aspects of the history of one's own
group; and both these developments go together. Only when historiography becomes
- as Pieter Geyl put it so well - 'a debate without end' rather than a continuation of
war by historiographic means, only then does a humane historiography, which strives
for both accuracy and fairness, become possible; and it then turns into one of the
most powerful instruments of humanism and self-education.

It is for this reason that modern totalitarian regimes rewrite history or punish
historians. (16) When a whole society tries to return to totalitarianism, a totalitarian
history is written, not because of compulsion from above but under pressure from
below, which is much more effective. This is what happened in Jewish history, and
this constitutes the first obstacle we have to surmount.

Defense Mechanisms

What were the detailed mechanisms (other than bribery) employed by Jewish
communities, in cooperation with outside forces, in order to ward off the attack on
the Talmud and other religious literature? Several methods can be distinguished, all
of them having important political consequences reflected in current Israeli policies.
Although it would be tedious to supply in each case the Beginistic or Labour-zionist
parallel, I am sure that readers who are somewhat familiar with the details of Middle
East politics will themselves be able to notice the resemblance.

The first mechanism I shall discuss is that of surreptitious defiance,
combined with outward compliance. As explained

[23] above, talmudic passages directed against Christianity or against non-Jews (17)
had to go or to be modified - the pressure was too strong. This is what was done: a
few of the most offensive passages were bodily removed from all editions printed in
Europe after the mid-i6th century. In all other passages, the expressions 'Gentile',
'non-Jew', 'stranger' (goy, eino yehudi, nokhri) - which appear in all early

22

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

manuscripts and printings as well as in all editions published in Islamic countries -
were replaced by terms such as 'idolator', 'heathen' or even 'Canaanite' or 'Samaritan',
terms which could be explained away but which a Jewish reader could recognize as
euphemisms for the old expressions.

As the attack mounted, so the defence became more elaborate, sometimes with
lasting tragic results. During certain periods the Tsarist Russian censorship became
stricter and, seeing the above mentioned euphemisms for what they were, forbade
them too. Thereupon the rabbinical authorities substituted the terms 'Arab' or
'Muslim' (in Hebrew, Yishma'eli - which means both) or occasionally 'Egyptian',
correctly calculating that the Tsarist authorities would not object to this kind of
abuse. At the same time, lists of Talmudic Omissions were circulated in manuscript
form, which explained all the new terms and pointed out all the omissions. At times, a
general disclaimer was printed before the title page of each volume of talmudic
literature, solemnly declaring, sometimes on oath, that all hostile expressions in that
volume are intended only against the idolaters of antiquity, or even against the long-
vanished Canaanites, rather than against 'the peoples in whose land we live'. After the
British conquest of India, some rabbis hit on the subterfuge of claiming that any
particularly outrageous derogatory expression used by them is only intended against
the Indians. Occasionally the aborigines of Australia were also added as whipping-
boys.

Needless to say, all this was a calculated he from beginning to end; and
following the establishment of the State of Israel, once the rabbis felt secure, all the
offensive passages and expressions were restored without hesitation in all new
editions. (Because of the enormous cost which a new edition involves, a considerable
part of the talmudic literature, including the Talmud itself, is still being reprinted
from the old editions. For this reason, the above mentioned Talmudic Omissions
have now been published in Israel in a cheap printed edition, under the title
Hesronot Shas.) So now one can read quite freely - and Jewish children are actually
taught - passages such as that (18) which commands every Jew, whenever passing
near a cemetery, to utter a blessing if the cemetery is Jewish, but to curse the

[24] mothers of the dead (19) if it is non-Jewish. In the old editions the curse was
omitted, or one of the euphemisms was substituted for 'Gentiles'. But in the new
Israeli edition of Rabbi Adin Steinsalz (complete with Hebrew explanations and
glosses to the Aramaic parts of the text, so that schoolchildren should be in no doubt
as to what they are supposed to say) the unambiguous words 'Gentiles' and 'strangers'
have been restored.

Under external pressure, the rabbis deceptively eliminated or modified certain
passages - but not the actual practices which are prescribed in them. It is a fact which
must be remembered, not least by Jews themselves, that for centuries our totalitarian
society has employed barbaric and inhumane customs to poison the minds of its
members, and it is still doing so. (These inhumane customs cannot be explained away
as mere reaction to antisemitism or persecution of Jews: they are gratuitous
barbarities directed against each and every human being. A pious Jew arriving for the
first time in Australia, say, and chancing to pass near an Aboriginal graveyard, must -
as an act of worship of 'God' - curse the mothers of the dead buried there.) Without
facing this real social fact, we all become parties to the deception and accomplices to

23

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

the process of poisoning the present and future generations, with all the
consequences of this process.

The Deception Continues

Modern scholars of Judaism have not only continued the deception, but have
actually improved upon the old rabbinical methods, both in impudence and in
mendacity. I omit here the various histories of antisemitism, as unworthy of serious
consideration, and shall give just three particular examples and one general example
of the more modern 'scholarly' deceptions.

In 1962, a part of the Maimonidean Code referred to above, the so-called Book
of Knowledge, which contains the most basic rules of Jewish faith and practice, was
published in Jerusalem in a bilingual edition, with the English translation facing the
Hebrew text. (20) The latter has been restored to its original purity, and the
command to exterminate Jewish infidels appears in it in full: 'It is a duty to
exterminate them with one's own hands.' In the English translation this is somewhat
softened to: 'It is a duty to take active measures to destroy them.' But then the
Hebrew text goes on to specify the prime examples of 'infidels' who must be
exterminated: 'Such as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils, and Tzadoq and Baitos (21)
and their pupils, may the name of the wicked rot'. Not one word of this appears in

[25] the English text on the facing page (78a). And, even more significant, in
spite of the wide circulation of this book among scholars in the English-speaking
countries, not one of them has, as far as I know, protested against this glaring
deception.

The second example comes from the USA, again from an English translation of
a book by Maimonides. Apart from his work on the codification of the Talmud, he
was also a philosopher and his Guide to the Perplexed is justly considered to be the
greatest work of Jewish religious philosophy and is widely read and used even today.
Unfortunately, in addition to his attitude towards non-Jews generally and Christians
in particular, Maimonides was also an anti-Black racist. Towards the end of the
Guide, in a crucial chapter (book III, chapter 51) he discusses how various sections of
humanity can attain the supreme religious value, the true worship of God. Among
those who are incapable of even approaching this are:

"Some of the Turks [i.e., the Mongol race] and the nomads in the North, and
the Blacks and the nomads in the South, and those who resemble them in our
climates. And their nature is like the nature of mute animals, and according to my
opinion they are not on the level of human beings, and their level among existing
things is below that of a man and above that of a monkey, because they have the
image and the resemblance of a man more than a monkey does."

Now, what does one do with such a passage in a most important and necessary
work of Judaism? Face the truth and its consequences? God forbid! Admit (as so
many Christian scholars, for example, have done in similar circumstances) that a very
important Jewish authority held also rabid anti-Black views, and by this admission
make an attempt at self-education in real humanity? Perish the thought. I can almost

24

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

imagine Jewish scholars in the USA consulting among themselves, 'What is to be
done?' - for the book had to be translated, due to the decline in the knowledge of
Hebrew among American Jews. Whether by consultation or by individual inspiration,
a happy solution' was found: in the popular American translation of the Guide by one
Friedlander, first published as far back as 1925 and since then reprinted in many
editions, including several in paperback, the Hebrew word Kushim, which means
Blacks, was simply transliterated and appears as 'Kushites', a word which means
nothing to those who have no knowledge of Hebrew, or to whom an obliging rabbi
will not give an oral explanation. (22) During all these years, not a word has been said
to point out the initial deception or the social facts underlying its continuation - and
this throughout the excitement of Martin Luther

[26] King's campaigns, which were supported by so many rabbis, not to mention
other Jewish figures, some of whom must have been aware of the anti-Black racist
attitude which forms part of their Jewish heritage. (23)

Surely one is driven to the hypothesis that quite a few of Martin Luther King's
rabbinical supporters were either anti-Black racists who supported him for tactical
reasons of 'Jewish interest' (wishing to win Black support for American Jewry and for
Israel's policies) or were accomplished hypocrites, to the point of schizophrenia,
capable of passing very rapidly from a hidden enjoyment of rabid racism to a
proclaimed attachment to an anti-racist struggle - and back - and back again.

The third example comes from a work which has far less serious scholarly intent
- but is all the more popular for that: The Joys of Yiddish by Leo Rosten. This light¬
hearted work - first published in the USA in 1968, and reprinted in many editions,
including several times as a Penguin paperback - is a kind of glossary of Yiddish
words often used by Jews or even non-Jews in English-speaking countries. For each
entry, in addition to a detailed definition and more or less amusing anecdotes
illustrating its use, there is also an etymology stating (quite accurately, on the whole)
the language from which the word came into Yiddish and its meaning in that
language. The entry Shaygets - whose main meaning is 'a Gentile boy or young man’ -
is an exception: there the etymology cryptically states 'Hebrew Origin', without giving
the form or meaning of the original Hebrew word. However, under the entry Shiksa -
the feminine form of Shaygets - the author does give the original Hebrew word,
sheqetz (or, in his transliteration, sheques ) and defines its Hebrew meaning as
'blemish'. This is a bare-faced lie, as every speaker of Hebrew knows. The Megiddo
Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary, published in Israel, correctly defines shegetz as
follows: 'unclean animal; loathsome creature, abomination (colloquial - pronounced
shaygets ) wretch, unruly youngster; Gentile youngster'.

My final, more general example is, if possible, even more shocking than the
others. It concerns the attitude of the Hassidic movement towards non-Jews.
Hassidism - a continuation (and debasement!) of Jewish mysticism - is still a living
movement, with hundreds of thousands of active adherents who are fanatically
devoted to their 'holy rabbis', some of whom have acquired a very considerable
political influence in Israel, among the leaders of most parties and even more so in
the higher echelons of the army.

What, then, are the views of this movement concerning non-Jews? As an

25

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

example, let us take the famous Hatanya,

[27] fundamental book of the Habbad movement, one of the most important
branches of Hassidism. According to this book, all non-Jews are totally satanic
creatures 'in whom there is absolutely nothing good'. Even a non-Jewish embryo is
qualitatively different from a Jewish one. The very existence of a non-Jew is
essential', whereas all of creation was created solely for the sake of the Jews.

This book is circulated in countless editions, and its ideas are further
propagated in the numerous 'discourses' of the present hereditary Fiihrer of Habbad,
the so-called Lubavitcher rabbi, M.M. Schneerssohn, who leads this powerful world¬
wide organization from his New York headquarters. In Israel these ideas are widely
disseminated among the public at large, in the schools and in the army. (According to
the testimony of Shulamit Aloni, Member of the Knesset, this Habbad propaganda
was particularly stepped up before Israel's invasion of Lebanon in March 1978, in
order to induce military doctors and nurses to withhold medical help from 'Gentile
wounded'. This Nazi-like advice did not refer specifically to Arabs or Palestinians, but
simply to 'Gentiles', goyim .) A former Israeli President, Shazar, was an ardent
adherent of Habbad, and many top Israeli and American politicians - headed by
Prime Minister Begin - publicly courted and supported it. This, in spite of the
considerable unpopularity of the Lubavitcher rabbi - in Israel he is widely criticized
because he refuses to come to the Holy Land even for a visit and keeps himself in New
York for obscure messianic reasons, while in New York his anti-Black attitude is
notorious.

The fact that, despite these pragmatic difficulties, Habbad can be publicly
supported by so many top political figures owes much to the thoroughly disingenuous
and misleading treatment by almost all scholars who have written about the Hassidic
movement and its Habbad branch. This applies particularly to all who have written or
are writing about it in English. They suppress the glaring evidence of the old Hassidic
texts as well as the latter-day political implications that follow from them, which stare
in the face of even a casual reader of the Israeli Hebrew press, in whose pages the
Lubavitcher rabbi and other Hassidic leaders constantly publish the most rabid
bloodthirsty statements and exhortations against all Arabs.

A chief deceiver in this case, and a good example of the power of the deception,
was Martin Buber. His numerous works eulogizing the whole Hassidic movement
(including Habbad) never so much as hint at the real doctrines of Hassidism
concerning non-Jews. The crime of deception is all the greater in view of the fact that
Buber's eulogies of

[28] Hassidism were first published in German during the period of the rise of
German nationalism and the accession of Nazism to power. But while ostensibly
opposing Nazism, Buber glorified a movement holding and actually teaching
doctrines about non-Jews not unlike the Nazi doctrines about Jews. One could of
course argue that the Hassidic Jews of seventy or fifty years ago were the victims, and
a 'white lie' favoring a victim is excusable. But the consequences of deception are
incalculable. Buber's works were translated into Hebrew, were made a powerful
element of the Hebrew education in Israel, have greatly increased the power of the
blood-thirsty Hassidic leaders, and have thus been an important factor in the rise of

26

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Israeli chauvinism and hate of all non-Jews. If we think about the many human
beings who died of their wounds because Israeli army nurses, incited by Hassidic
propaganda, refused to tend them, then a heavy onus for their blood lies on the head
of Martin Buber.

I must mention here that in his adulation of Hassidism Buber far surpassed
other Jewish scholars, particularly those writing in Hebrew (or, formerly, in Yiddish)
or even in European languages but purely for a Jewish audience. In questions of
internal Jewish interest, there had once been a great deal of justified criticism of the
Hassidic movement. Their mysogynism (much more extreme than that common to all
Jewish Orthodoxy), their indulgence in alcohol, their fanatical cult of their hereditary
'holy rabbis' who extorted money from them, the numerous superstitions peculiar to
them - these and many other negative traits were critically commented upon. But
Buber's sentimental and deceitful romantization has won the day, especially in the
USA and Israel, because it was in tune with the totalitarian admiration of anything
'genuinely Jewish' and because certain 'left' Jewish circles in which Buber had a
particularly great influence have adopted this position.

Nor was Buber alone in his attitude, although in my opinion he was by far the
worst in the evil he propagated and the influence he has left behind him. There was
the very influential sociologist and biblical scholar, Yehezkiel Kaufman, an advocate
of genocide on the model of the Book of Joshua, the idealist philosopher Hugo
Shmuel Bergman, who as far back as 1914-15 advocated the expulsion of all
Palestinians to Iraq, and many others. All were outwardly 'dovish', but employed
formulas which could be manipulated in the most extreme anti-Arab sense, all had
tendencies to that religious mysticism which encourages the propagation of
deceptions, and all seemed to be gentle persons who, even when advocating
expulsion, racism and genocide, seemed incapable of hurting a fly - and just for this

[29] reason the effect of their deceptions was the greater.

It is against the glorification of inhumanity, proclaimed not only by the rabbis
but by those who are supposed to be the greatest and certainly the most influential
scholars of Judaism, that we have to struggle; and it is against those modern
successors of the false prophets and dishonest priests that we have to repeat even in
the face of an almost unanimous opinion within Israel and among the majority of
Jews in countries such as the USA Lucretius' warning against surrendering one's
judgement to the declamations of religious leaders: Tantum religio potuit suadere
malorum - 'To such heights of evil are men driven by religion.' Religion is not always
(as Marx said) the opium of the people, but it can often be so, and when it is used in
this sense by prevaricating and misrepresenting its true nature, the scholars and
intellectuals who perform this task take on the character of opium smugglers.

But we can derive from this analysis another, more general conclusion about the
most effective and horrific means of compulsion to do evil, to cheat and to deceive
and, while keeping one's hands quite clean of violence, to corrupt whole peoples and
drive them to oppression and murder. (For there can no longer be any doubt that the
most horrifying acts of oppression in the West Bank are motivated by Jewish
religious fanaticism.) Most people seem to assume that the worst totalitarianism
employs physical coercion, and would refer to the imagery of Orwell's 1984 for a

27

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

model illustrating such a regime. But it seems to me that this common view is greatly
mistaken, and that the intuition of Isaac Asimov, in whose science fiction the worst
oppression is always internalized, is the more true to the dangers of human nature.
Unlike Stalin's tame scholars, the rabbis - and even more so the scholars attacked
here, and with them the whole mob of equally silent middlebrows such as writers,
journalists, public figures, who lie and deceive more than them - are not facing the
danger of death or concentration camp, but only social pressure; they lie out of
patriotism because they believe that it is their duty to lie for what they conceive to be
the Jewish interest. They are patriotic liars, and it is the same patriotism which
reduces them to silence when confronted with the discrimination and oppression of
the Palestinians.

In the present case we are also faced with another group loyalty, but one which
comes from outside the group, and which is sometimes even more mischievous. Very
many non- Jews (including Christian clergy and religious laymen, as well as some
marxists from all marxist groups) hold the curious

[30] opinion that one way to 'atone' for the persecution of Jews is not to speak out
against evil perpetrated by Jews but to participate in 'white lies' about them. The
crude accusation of 'antisemitism' (or, in the case of Jews, 'self-hate') against anybody
who protests at the discrimination of Palestinians or who points out any fact about
the Jewish religion or the Jewish past which conflicts with the 'approved version'
comes with greater hostility and force from non-Jewish 'friends of the Jews' than
from Jews. It is the existence and great influence of this group in all western
countries, and particularly in the USA (as well as the other English-speaking
countries) which has allowed the rabbis and scholars of Judaism to propagate their
lies not only without opposition but with considerable help.

In fact, many professed 'anti-stalinists' have merely substituted another idol for
their worship, and tend to support Jewish racism and fanaticism with even greater
ardor and dishonesty than were found among the most devoted stalinists in the past.
Although this phenomenon of blind and stalinistic support for any evil, so long as it is
'Jewish', is particularly strong from 1945, when the truth about the extermination of
European Jewry became known, it is a mistake to suppose that it began only then. On
the contrary, it dates very far back, particularly in social-democratic circles. One of
Marx's early friends, Moses Hess, widely known and respected as one of the first
socialists in Germany, subsequently revealed himself as an extreme Jewish racist,
whose views about the 'pure Jewish race' published in 1858 were not unlike
comparable bilge about the 'pure Aryan race'. But the German socialists, who
struggled against German racism, remained silent about their Jewish racism.

In 1944, during the actual struggle against Hitler, the British Labor Party
approved a plan for the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine, which was similar to
Hitler's early plans (up to about 1941) for the Jews. This plan was approved under the
pressure of Jewish members of the party's leadership, many of whom have displayed
a stronger 'kith and kin' attitude to every Israeli policy than the Conservative 'kith
and kin' supporters of Ian Smith ever did. But stalinistic taboos on the left are
stronger in Britain than on the right, and there is virtually no discussion even when
the Labor Party supports Begin's government.

28

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

In the USA a similar situation prevails, and again the American liberals are the
worst.

This is not the place to explore all the political consequences of this situation,
but we must face reality: in our

[31] struggle against the racism and fanaticism of the Jewish religion, our greatest
enemies will be not only the Jewish racists (and users of racism) but also those non-
Jews who in other areas are known - falsely in my opinion - as 'progressives'.

[32]

Chapter 3

29

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Orthodoxy and Interpretation

This chapter is devoted to a more detailed description of the theologico-legal
structure of classical Judaism, (l) However, before embarking on that description it is
necessary to dispel at least some of the many misconceptions disseminated in almost
all foreign-language (that is, non-Hebrew) accounts of Judaism, especially by those
who propagate such currently fashionable phrases as 'the Judeo-Christian tradition'
or 'the common values of the monotheistic religions'.

Because of considerations of space I shall only deal in detail with the most
important of these popular delusions: that the Jewish religion is, and always was,
monotheistic. Now, as many biblical scholars know, and as a careful reading of the
Old Testament easily reveals, this ahistorical view is quite wrong. In many, if not
most, books of the Old Testament the existence and power of 'other gods' are clearly
acknowledged, but Yahweh (Jehovah), who is the most powerful god, (2) is also very
jealous of his rivals and forbids his people to worship them. (3) It is only very late in
the Bible, in some of the later prophets, that the existence of all gods other than
Yahweh is denied. (4)

What concerns us, however, is not biblical but classical Judaism; and it is quite
clear, though much less widely realized, that the latter, during its last few hundred
years, was for the most part far from pure monotheism. The same can be said about
the real doctrines dominant in present-day Orthodox Judaism, which is a direct
continuation of classical Judaism. The decay of monotheism came about through the
spread of Jewish mysticism (the cabbala) which developed in the 12th and 13th
centuries, and by the late 16th century had won an almost complete victory in
virtually all the centers of Judaism. The Jewish Enlightenment, which arose out of
the crisis of classical Judaism, had to fight against this mysticism and its influence
more than against anything else, but in latter-day Jewish Orthodoxy, especially
among the rabbis, the influence of the cabbala has remained predominant. (5) For
example, the Gush Emunim movement is inspired to a great extent by cabbalistic
ideas.

Knowledge and understanding of these ideas is therefore important for two
reasons. First, without it one cannot

[ 33 ] understand the true beliefs of Judaism at the end of its classical period.
Secondly, these ideas play an important contemporary political role, inasmuch as
they form part of the explicit system of beliefs of many religious politicians, including
most leaders of Gush Emunim, and have an indirect influence on many Zionist
leaders of all parties, including the zionist left.

According to the cabbala, the universe is ruled not by one god but by several
deities, of various characters and influences, emanated by a dim, distant First Cause.
Omitting many details, one can summarize the system as follows. From the First
Cause, first a male god called 'Wisdom' or 'Father' and then a female goddess called

30

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

'Knowledge' or 'Mother' were emanated or born. From the marriage of these two, a
pair of younger gods were born: Son, also called by many other names such as 'Small
Face' or 'The Holy Blessed One'; and Daughter, also called 'Lady' (or 'Matronit', a
word derived from Latin), 'Shekhinah', 'Queen', and so on. These two younger gods
should be united, but their union is prevented by the machinations of Satan, who in
this system is a very important and independent personage. The Creation was
undertaken by the First Cause in order to allow them to unite, but because of the Fall
they became more disunited than ever, and indeed Satan has managed to come very
close to the divine Daughter and even to rape her (either seemingly or in fact -
opinions differ on this). The creation of the Jewish people was undertaken in order to
mend the break caused by Adam and Eve, and under Mount Sinai this was for a
moment achieved: the male god Son, incarnated in Moses, was united with the
goddess Shekhinah. Unfortunately, the sin of the Golden Calf again caused disunity
in the godhead; but the repentance of the Jewish people has mended matters to some
extent. Similarly, each incident of biblical Jewish history is believed to be associated
with the union or disunion of the divine pair. The Jewish conquest of Palestine from
the Canaanites and the building of the first and second Temple are particularly
propitious for their, union, while the destruction of the Temples and exile of the Jews
from the Holy Land are merely external signs not only of the divine disunion but also
of a real 'whoring after strange gods': Daughter falls closely into the power of Satan,
while Son takes various female satanic personages to his bed, instead of his proper
wife.

The duty of pious Jews is to restore through their prayers and religious acts the
perfect divine unity, in the form of sexual union, between the male and female deities.
(6) Thus before most ritual acts, which every devout Jew has to perform many times
each day, the following cabbalistic formula is recited: 'For the

[ 34 ] sake of the [sexual] congress (7) of the Holy Blessed One and his Shekhinah... '
The Jewish morning prayers are also arranged so as to promote this sexual union, if
only temporarily. Successive parts of the prayer mystically correspond to successive
stages of the union: at one point the goddess approaches with her handmaidens, at
another the god puts his arm around her neck and fondles her breast, and finally the
sexual act is supposed to take place.

Other prayers or religious acts, as interpreted by the cabbalists, are designed to
deceive various angels (imagined as minor deities with a measure of independence)
or to propitiate Satan. At a certain point in the morning prayer, some verses in
Aramaic (rather than the more usual Hebrew) are pronounced. (8) This is supposed
to be a means for tricking the angels who operate the gates through which prayers
enter heaven and who have the power to block the prayers of the pious. The angels
only understand Hebrew and are baffled by the Aramaic verses; being somewhat dull-
witted (presumably they are far less clever than the cabbalists) they open the gates,
and at this moment all the prayers, including those in Hebrew, get through. Or take
another example: both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands,
uttering a special blessing. On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God, by
promoting the divine union of Son and Daughter; but on the other he is worshiping
Satan, who likes Jewish prayers and ritual acts so much that when he is offered a few
of them it keeps him busy for a while and he forgets to pester the divine Daughter.
Indeed, the cabbalists believe that some of the sacrifices burnt in the Temple were
intended for Satan. For example, the seventy bullocks sacrificed during the seven

31

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

days of the feast of Tabernacles (9) were supposedly offered to Satan in his capacity
as ruler of all the Gentiles, (10) in order to keep him too busy to interfere on the
eighth day, when sacrifice is made to God. Many other examples of the same kind can
be given.

Several points should be made concerning this system and its importance for
the proper understanding of Judaism, both in its classical period and in its present
political involvement in Zionist practice.

First, whatever can be said about this cabbalistic system, it cannot be regarded
as monotheistic, unless one is also prepared to regard Hinduism, the late Graeco-
Roman religion, or even the religion of ancient Egypt, as 'monotheistic'.

Secondly, the real nature of classical Judaism is illustrated by the ease with
which this system was adopted. Faith and beliefs (except nationalistic beliefs) play an
extremely small

[ 35 ] part in classical Judaism. What is of prime importance is the ritual act, rather
than the significance which that act is supposed to have or the belief attached to it.
Therefore in times when a minority of religious Jews refused to accept the cabbala (as
is the case today), one could see some few Jews performing a given religious ritual
believing it to be an act of worship of God, while others do exactly the same thing
with the intention of propitiating Satan - but so long as the act is the same they would
pray together and remain members of the same congregation, however much they
might dislike each other. But if instead of the intention attached to the ritual washing
of hands anyone would dare to introduce an innovation in the manner of washing,
(11) a real schism would certainly ensue.

The same can be said about all sacred formulas of Judaism. Provided the
working is left intact, the meaning is at best a secondary matter. For example,
perhaps the most sacred Jewish formula, 'Hear o Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord
is one', recited several times each day by every pious Jew, can at the present time
mean two contrary things. It can mean that the Lord is indeed 'one'; but it can also
mean that a certain stage in the union of the male and female deities has been
reached or is being promoted by the proper recitation of this formula. However, when
Jews of a Reformed congregation recite this formula in any language other than
Hebrew, all Orthodox rabbis, whether they believe in unity or in the divine sexual
union, are very angry indeed.

Finally, all this is of considerable importance in Israel (and in other Jewish
centers) even at present. The enormous significance attached to mere formulas (such
as the 'Law of Jerusalem'); the ideas and motivations of Gush Emunim; the urgency
behind the hate for non-Jews presently living in Palestine; the fatalistic attitude
towards all peace attempts by Arab states - all these and many other traits of Zionist
politics, which puzzle so many well-meaning people who have a false notion about
classical Judaism, become more intelligible against this religious and mystical
background. I must warn, however, against falling into the other extreme and trying
to explain all zionist politics in terms of this background. Obviously, the latter's
influences vary in extent. Ben-Gurion was adept at manipulating them in a controlled
way for specific ends. Under Begin the past exerts a much greater influence upon the
present. But what one should never do is to ignore the past and its influences,
because only by knowing it can one transcend its blind power.

32

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

[36]

Interpretation of the Bible

It will be seen from the foregoing example that what most supposedly well-
informed people think they know about Judaism may be very misleading, unless they
can read Hebrew. All the details mentioned above can be found in the original texts
or, in some cases, in modern books written in Hebrew for a rather specialized
readership. In English one would look for them in vain, even where the omission of
such socially important facts distorts the whole picture.

There is yet another misconception about Judaism which is particularly
common among Christians, or people heavily influenced by Christian tradition and
culture. This is the misleading idea that Judaism is a 'biblical religion’; that the Old
Testament has in Judaism the same central place and legal authority which the Bible
has for Protestant or even Catholic Christianity.

Again, this is connected with the question of interpretation. We have seen that
in matters of belief there is great latitude. Exactly the opposite holds with respect to
the legal interpretation of sacred texts. Here the interpretation is rigidly fixed - but by
the Talmud rather than by the Bible itself. (12) Many, perhaps most, biblical verses
prescribing religious acts and obligations are ’understood’ by classical Judaism, and
by present-day Orthodoxy, in a sense which is quite distinct from, or even contrary
to, their literal meaning as understood by Christian or other readers of the Old
Testament, who only see the plain text. The same division exists at present in Israel
between those educated in Jewish religious schools and those educated in ’secular’
Hebrew schools, where on the whole the plain meaning of the Old Testament is
taught.

This important point can only be understood through examples. It will be noted
that the changes in meaning do not all go in the same direction from the point of view
of ethics, as the term is understood now. Apologetics of Judaism claim that the
interpretation of the Bible, originated by the Pharisees and fixed in the Talmud, is
always more liberal than the literal sense. But some of the examples below show that
this is far from being the case.

1) Let us start with the Decalogue itself. The Eighth Commandment, Thou shalt
not steal’ (Exodus , 20:15), is taken to be a prohibition against ’stealing’ (that is,
kidnapping) a Jewish person. The reason is that according to the Talmud all acts
forbidden by the Decalogue are capital offenses. Stealing property is not a capital
offense (while kidnapping of Gentiles by Jews is allowed by talmudic law) - hence the
interpretation. A virtually identical

[37] sentence - ’Ye shall not steal’ (Leviticus, 19:11) - is however allowed to have its
literal meaning.

2) The famous verse ’Eye for eye, tooth for tooth’ etc. (Exodus, 21:24) is taken to
mean ’eye-money for eye’, that is payment of a fine rather than physical retribution.

33

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

3) Here is a notorious case of turning the literal meaning into its exact opposite.
The biblical text plainly warns against following the bandwagon in an unjust cause:
thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to
decline after many to wrest judgment' (Exodus, 23:2). The last words of this sentence
- 'Decline after many to wrest judgment' - are torn out of their context and
interpreted as an injunction to follow the majority

4) The verse 'Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk' (Exodus, 23:19) is
interpreted as a ban on mixing any kind of meat with any milk or milk product. Since
the same verse is repeated in two other places in the Pentateuch, the mere repetition
is taken to be a treble ban, forbidding a Jew (i) to eat such a mixture, (ii) to cook it for
any purpose and (iii) to enjoy or benefit from it in any way. (13)

5 ) In numerous cases general terms such as 'thy fellow', 'stranger', or even
'man' are taken to have an exelusivist chauvinistic meaning. The famous verse 'thou
shalt love thy fellow (14) as thyself (Leviticus, 19:18) is understood by classical (and
present-day Orthodox) Judaism as an injunction to love one's fellow Jew, not any
fellow human. Similarly, the verse 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy
fellow' (ibid., 16) is supposed to mean that one must not stand idly by when the life
('blood') of a fellow Jew is in danger; but, as will be seen in Chapter 5, a Jew is in
general forbidden to save the life of a Gentile, because 'he is not thy fellow'. The
generous injunction to leave the gleanings of one's field and vineyard 'for the poor
and the stranger' (ibid., 9-10) is interpreted as referring exclusively to the Jewish
poor and to converts to Judaism. The taboo laws relating to corpses begin with the
verse 'This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent... shall
be unclean seven days' (Numbers, 19:16). But the word 'man' (adam) is taken to
mean 'Jew', so that only a Jewish corpse is taboo (that is, both 'unclean' and sacred).
Based on this interpretation, pious Jews have a tremendous magic reverence towards
Jewish corpses and Jewish cemeteries, but have no respect towards non-Jewish
corpses and cemeteries. Thus hundreds of Muslim cemeteries have been utterly
destroyed in Israel (in one case in order to make room

[38] for the Tel-Aviv Hilton) but there was a great outcry because the Jewish
cemetery on the Mount of Olives was damaged under Jordanian rule. Examples of
this kind are too numerous to quote. Some of the inhuman consequences of this type
of interpretation will be discussed in Chapter 5.

6) Finally, consider one of the most beautiful prophetic passages, Isaiah's
magnificent condemnation of hypocrisy and empty ritual, and exhortation to
common decency. One verse (Isaiah, 1:15) in this passage is: 'And when ye spread
forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I
will not hear: your hands are full of blood.' Since Jewish priests 'spread their hands'
when blessing the people during service, this verse is supposed to mean that a priest
who commits accidental homicide is disqualified from 'spreading his hands' in
blessing (even if repentant) because they are 'full of blood'.

It is quite clear even from these examples that when Orthodox Jews today (or all
Jews before about 1780) read the Bible, they are reading a very different book, with a
totally different meaning, from the Bible as read by non-Jews or non-Orthodox Jews.
This distinction applies even in Israel, although both parties read the text in Hebrew.

34

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Experience, particularly since 1967, has repeatedly corroborated this. Many Jews in
Israel (and elsewhere), who are not Orthodox and have little detailed knowledge of
the Jewish religion, have tried to shame Orthodox Israelis (or right-wingers who are
strongly influenced by religion) out of their inhuman attitude towards the
Palestinians, by quoting at them verses from the Bible in their plain humane sense. It
was always found, however, that such arguments do not have the slightest effect on
those who follow classical Judaism; they simply do not understand what is being said
to them, because to them the biblical text means something quite different than to
everyone else.

If such a communication gap exists in Israel, where people read Hebrew and can
readily obtain correct information if they wish, one can imagine how deep is the
misconception abroad, say among people educated in the Christian tradition. In fact,
the more such a person reads the Bible, the less he or she knows about Orthodox
Judaism. For the latter regards the Old Testament as a text of immutable sacred
formulas, whose recitation is an act of great merit, but whose meaning is wholly
determined elsewhere. And, as Humpty Dumpty told Alice, behind the problem of
who can determine the meaning of words, there stands the real question: 'Which is to
be master?'

[ 39 ]

Structure of the Talmud

It should therefore be clearly understood that the source of authority for all the
practices of classical (and present-day Orthodox) Judaism, the determining base of
its legal structure, is the Talmud, or, to be precise, the so-called Babylonian Talmud;
while the rest of the talmudic literature (including the so-called Jerusalem or
Palestinian Talmud ) acts as a supplementary authority.

We cannot enter here into a detailed description of the Talmud and talmudic
literature, but confine ourselves to a few principal points needed for our argument.
Basically, the Talmud consists of two parts. First, the Mishnah - a terse legal code
consisting of six volumes, each subdivided into several tractates, written in Hebrew,
redacted in Palestine around AD 200 out of the much more extensive (and largely
oral) legal material composed during the preceding two centuries. The second and by
far predominant part is the Gemarah - a voluminous record of discussions on and
around the Mishnah. There are two, roughly parallel, sets of Gemarah, one composed
in Mesopotamia ('Babylon') between about AD 200 and 500, the other in Palestine
between about AD 200 and some unknown date long before 500. The Babylonian
Talmud (that is, the Mishnah plus the Mesopotamian Gemarah ) is much more
extensive and better arranged than the Palestinian, and it alone is regarded as
definitive and authoritative. The Jerusalem (Palestinian) Talmud is accorded a
decidedly lower status as a legal authority, along with a number of compilations,
known collectively as the 'talmudic literature', containing material which the editors
of the two Talmuds had left out.

Contrary to the Mishnah, the rest of the Talmud and talmudic literature is
written in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, the latter language predominating in
the Babylonian Talmud. Also, it is not limited to legal matters. Without any apparent

35

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

order or reason, the legal discussion can suddenly be interrupted by what is referred
to as 'Narrative' (Aggadah) a medley of tales and anecdotes about rabbis or ordinary
folk, biblical figures, angels, demons, witchcraft and miracles. (15) These narrative
passages, although of great popular influence in Judaism through the ages, were
always considered (even by the Talmud itself) as having secondary value. Of greatest
importance for classical Judaism are the legal parts of the text, particularly the
discussion of cases which are regarded as problematic. The Talmud itself defines the
various categories of Jews, in ascending order, as follows, The lowest are the totally
ignorant, then come those who only know the Bible, then those who are familiar with
the Mishnah or Aggadah,

[40] and the superior class are those who have studied, and are able to discuss the
legal part of the Gemarah. It is only the latter who are fit to lead their fellow Jews in
all things.

The legal system of the Talmud can be described as totally comprehensive,
rigidly authoritarian, and yet capable of infinite development, without however any
change in its dogmatic base. Every aspect of Jewish life, both individual and social, is
covered, usually in considerable detail, with sanctions and punishments provided for
every conceivable sin or infringement of the rules. The basic rules for every problem
are stated dogmatically and cannot be questioned. What can be and is discussed at
very great length is the elaboration and practical definition of these rules. Let me give
a few examples.

'Not doing any work' on the sabbath. The concept work is defined as comprising
exactly 39 types of work, neither more nor less. The criterion for inclusion in this list
has nothing to do with the arduousness of a given task; it is simply a matter of
dogmatic definition. One forbidden type of 'work' is writing. The question then arises:
How many characters must one write in order to commit the sin of writing on the
sabbath? (Answer: Two). Is the sin the same, irrespective of which hand is used?
(Answer: No). However, in order to guard against falling into sin, the primary
prohibition on writing is hedged with a secondary ban on touching any writing
implement on the sabbath.

Another prototypical work forbidden on the sabbath is the grinding of grain.
From this it is deduced, by analogy, that any kind of grinding of anything whatsoever
is forbidden. And this in turn is hedged by a ban on the practice of medicine on the
sabbath (except in cases of danger to Jewish life), in order to guard against falling
into the sin of grinding a medicament. It is in vain to point out that in modern times
such a danger does not exist (nor, for that matter, did it exist in many cases even in
talmudic times); for, as a hedge around the hedge, the Talmud explicitly forbids
liquid medicines and restorative drinks on the sabbath. What has been fixed remains
for ever fixed, however absurd. Tertullian, one of the early Church Fathers, had
written, 'I believe it because it is absurd.' This can serve as a motto for the majority of
talmudic rules, with the word 'believe' replaced by 'practice'.

The following example illustrates even better the level of absurdity reached by
this system. One of the prototypes of work forbidden on the sabbath is harvesting.
This is stretched, by analogy, to a ban on breaking a branch off a tree. Hence, riding a
horse (or any other animal) is forbidden, as a hedge against the temptation to break a

36

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

branch off a tree for flogging the beast. It is useless to argue that you have a ready¬
made

[41] whip, or that you intend to ride where there are no trees. What is forbidden
remains forbidden for ever. It can, however, be stretched and made stricter: in
modern times, riding a bicycle on the sabbath has been forbidden, because it is
analogous to riding a horse.

My final example illustrates how the same methods are used also in purely
theoretical cases, having no conceivable application in reality. During the existence of
the Temple, the High Priest was only allowed to marry a virgin. Although during
virtually the whole of the talmudic period there was no longer a Temple or a High
Priest, the Talmud devotes one of its more involved (and bizarre) discussions to the
precise definition of the term 'virgin' fit to marry a High Priest. What about a woman
whose hymen had been broken by accident? Does it make any difference whether the
accident occurred before or after the age of three? By the impact of metal or of wood?
Was she climbing a tree? And if so, was she climbing up or down? Did it happen
naturally or unnaturally? All this and much else besides is discussed in lengthy detail.
And every scholar in classical Judaism had to master hundreds of such problems.
Great scholars were measured by their ability to develop these problems still further,
for as shown by the examples there is always scope for further development - if only
in one direction - and such development did actually continue after the final
redaction of the Talmud.

However, there are two great differences between the talmudic period (ending
around AD 500) and the period of classical Judaism (from about AD 800). The
geographical area reflected in the Talmud is confined, whereas the Jewish society
reflected in it is a 'complete' society, with Jewish agriculture as its basis. (This is true
for Mesopotamia as well as Palestine.) Although at that time there were Jews living
throughout the Roman Empire and in many areas of the Sassanid Empire, it is quite
evident from the talmudic text that its composition - over half a millennium - was a
strictly local affair. No scholars from countries other than Mesopotamia and Palestine
took part in it, nor does the text reflect social conditions outside these two areas.

Very little is known about the social and religious conditions of the Jews in the
intervening three centuries. But from AD 800 on, when more detailed historical
information is again available, we find that the two features mentioned above had
been reversed. The Babylonian Talmud (and to a much lesser degree the rest of the
talmudic literature) is acknowledged as authoritative, studied and developed in all
Jewish communities. At the same time, Jewish society had undergone

[42] a deep change: whatever and wherever it is, it does not include peasants.

The social system resulting from this change will be discussed in Chapter 4.
Here we shall describe how the Talmud was adapted to the conditions -
geographically much wider and socially much narrower, and at any rate radically
different - of classical Judaism. We shall concentrate on what is in my opinion the
most important method of adaptation, namely the dispensations.

The Dispensations

37

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

As noted above, the talmudic system is most dogmatic and does not allow any
relaxation of its rules even when they are reduced to absurdity by a change in
circumstances. And in the case of the Talmud - contrary to that of the Bible - the
literal sense of the text is binding, and one is not allowed to interpret it away. But in
the period of classical Judaism various talmudic laws became untenable for the
Jewish ruling classes - the rabbis and the rich. In the interest of these ruling classes, a
method of systematic deception was devised for keeping the letter of the law, while
violating its spirit and intention. It was this hypocritical system of 'dispensations'
(heterim) which, in my view, was the most important cause of the debasement of
Judaism in its classical epoch. (The second cause was Jewish mysticism, which
however operated for a much shorter period of time.) Again, some examples are
needed to illustrate how the system works.

(1) Taking of interest. The Talmud strictly forbids a Jew, on pain of severe
punishment, to take interest on a loan made to another Jew. (According to a majority
of talmudic authorities, it is a religious duty to take as much interest as possible on a
loan made to a Gentile.) Very detailed rules forbid even the most far-fetched forms in
which a Jewish lender might benefit from a Jewish debtor. All Jewish accomplices to
such an illicit transaction, including the scribe and the witnesses, are branded by the
Talmud as infamous persons, disqualified from testifying in court, because by
participating in such an act a Jew as good as declares that 'he has no part in the god
of Israel'. It is evident that this law is well suited to the needs of Jewish peasants or
artisans, or of small Jewish communities who use their money for lending to non-
Jews. But the situation was very different in east Europe (mainly in Poland) by the
16th century. There was a relatively big Jewish community, which constituted the
majority in many towns. The peasants, subjected to strict serfdom not far removed
from slavery, were hardly in a position

[43] to borrow at all, while lending to the nobility was the business of a few very rich
Jews. Many Jews were doing business with each other.

In these circumstances, the following arrangement (called heter 'isqa - 'business
dispensation') was devised for an interest-bearing loan between Jews, which does not
violate the letter of the law, because formally it is not a loan at all. The lender 'invests'
his money in the business of the borrower, stipulating two conditions. First, that the
borrower will pay the lender at an agreed future date a stated sum of money (in
reality, the interest in the loan) as the lender's 'share in the profits'. Secondly, that the
borrower will be presumed to have made sufficient profit to give the lender his share,
unless a claim to the contrary is corroborated by the testimony of the town's rabbi or
rabbinical judge, etc, - who, by arrangement, refuse to testily in such cases. In
practice all that is required is to take a text of this dispensation, written in Aramaic
and entirely incomprehensible to the great majority, and put it on a wall of the room
where the transaction is made (a copy of this text is displayed in all branches of
Israeli banks) or even to keep it in a chest - and the interest-bearing loan between
Jews becomes perfectly legal and blameless,

(2) The sabbatical year. According to talmudic law (based on Leviticus, 25)
Jewish-owned land in Palestine (16) must be left fallow every seventh ('sabbatical')
year, when all agricultural work (including harvesting) on such land is forbidden.
There is ample evidence that this law was rigorously observed for about one thousand

38

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

years, from the 5th century BC till the disappearance of Jewish agriculture in
Palestine. Later, when there was no occasion to apply the law in practice, it was kept
theoretically intact. However, in the 1880s, with the establishment of the first Jewish
agricultural colonies in Palestine, it became a matter of practical concern. Rabbis
sympathetic to the settlers helpfully devised a dispensation, which was later perfected
by their successors in the religious zionist parties and has become an established
Israeli practice.

This is how it works. Shortly before a sabbatical year, the Israeli Minister of
Internal Affairs gives the Chief Rabbi a document making him the legal owner of all
Israeli land, both private and public. Armed with this paper, the Chief Rabbi goes to a
non-Jew and sells him all the land of Israel (and, since 1967, the Occupied
Territories) for a nominal sum. A separate document stipulates that the 'buyer' will
'resell' the land back after the year is over. And this transaction is repeated every
seven years, usually with the same 'buyer'.

[ 44 ]

Non-zionist rabbis do not recognize the validity of this dispensation, (17)
claiming correctly that, since religious law for- bids Jews to sell land in Palestine to
Gentiles, the whole transaction is based on a sin and hence null and void. The zionist
rabbis reply, however, that what is forbidden is a real sale, not a fictitious one!

(3) Milking on the sabbath. This has been forbidden in post- talmudic
times, through the process of increasing religious severity mentioned above. The ban
could easily be kept in the diaspora, since Jews who had cows of their own were
usually rich enough to have non-Jewish servants, who could be ordered (using one of
the subterfuges described below) to do the milking. The early Jewish colonists in
Palestine employed Arabs for this and other purposes, but with the forcible
imposition of the Zionist policy of exclusive Jewish labor there was need for a
dispensation. (This was particularly important before the introduction of mechanized
milking in the late 1950s.) Here too there was a difference between zionist and non-
zionist rabbis.

According to the former, the forbidden milking becomes permitted provided the
milk is not white but dyed blue. This blue Saturday milk is then used exclusively for
making cheese, and the dye is washed off into the whey. Non-zionist rabbis have
devised a much subtler scheme (which I personally witnessed operating in a religious
kibbutz in 1952). They discovered an old provision which allows the udders of a cow
to be emptied on the sabbath, purely for relieving the suffering caused to the animal
by bloated udders, and on the strict condition that the milk runs to waste on the
ground. Now, this is what is actually done: on Saturday morning, a pious kibbutznik
goes to the cowshed and places pails under the cows. (There is no ban on such work
in the whole of the talmudic literature.) He then goes to the synagogue to pray. Then
comes his colleague, whose 'honest intention' is to relieve the animals' pain and let
their milk run to the floor. But if, by chance, a pail happens to be standing there, is he
under any obligation to remove it? Of course not. He simply 'ignores' the pails, fulfills
his mission of mercy and goes to the synagogue. Finally a third pious colleague goes
into the cowshed and discovers, to his great surprise, the pails full of milk. So he puts
them in cold storage and follows his comrades to the synagogue. Now all is well, and

39

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

there is no need to waste money on blue dye.

(4) Mixed crops. Similar dispensations were issued by zionist rabbis in
respect of the ban (based on Leviticus, 19:19) against sowing two different species of
crop in the same field. Modern agronomy has however shown that in some cases
(especially in growing

[45] fodder) mixed sowing is the most profitable. The rabbis invented a dispensation
according to which one man sows the field length- wise with one kind of seed, and
later that day his comrade, who 'does not know' about the former, sows another kind
of seed crosswise. However, this method was felt to be too wasteful of labor, and a
better one was devised: one man makes a heap of one kind of seed in a public place
and carefully covers it with a sack or piece of board. The second kind of seed is then
put on top of the cover. Later, another man comes and exclaims, in front of witnesses,
'I need this sack (or board)' and removes it, so that the seeds mix 'naturally'. Finally, a
third man comes along and is told,'Take this and sow the field,' which he proceeds to
do. (18)

(5) Leavened substances must not be eaten or even kept in the possession of
a Jew during the seven (or, outside Palestine, eight) days of Passover. The concept
'leavened substances' was continually broadened and the aversion to so much as
seeing them during the festival approached hysteria. They include all kinds of flour
and even unground grain. In the original talmudic society this was bearable, because
bread (leavened or not) was usually baked once a week; a peasant family would use
the last of the previous year's grain to bake unleavened bread for the festival, which
ushers in the new harvest season. However, in the conditions of post-Talmudic
European Jewry the observance was very hard on a middle-class Jewish family and
even more so on a corn merchant. A dispensation was therefore devised, by which all
those substances are sold in a fictitious sale to a Gentile before the festival and
bought back automatically after it. The one thing that must be done is to lock up the
taboo substances for the duration of the festival. In Israel this fictitious sale has been
made more efficient. Religious Jews 'sell' their leavened substances to their local
rabbis, who in turn 'sell' them to the Chief Rabbis; the latter sell them to a Gentile,
and by a special dispensation this sale is presumed to include also the leavened
substances of non-practising Jews.

(6) Sabbath-Goy. Perhaps the most developed dispensations concern the 'Goy
(Gentile) of Sabbath'. As mentioned above, the range of tasks banned on the sabbath
has widened continually; but the range of tasks that must be carried out or supervised
to satisfy- needs or to increase comfort also keeps widening. This is particularly true
in modern times, but the effect of technological change began to be felt long ago. The
ban against grinding on the sabbath was a relatively light matter for a Jewish peasant
or artisan, say in second-century Palestine, who used a hand mill for domestic
purposes. It was quite a different matter for a tenant of a water mill or windmill one
of the most common Jewish

[46] occupations in eastern Europe. But even such a simple human problem' as the
wish to have a hot cup of tea on a Saturday afternoon becomes much greater with the
tempting samovar, used regularly on weekdays, standing in the room. These are just
two examples out of a very large number of so-called 'problems of sabbath

40

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

observance'. And one can state with certainty that for a community composed
exclusively of Orthodox Jews they were quite insoluble, at least during the last eight
or ten centuries, without the 'help' of non-Jews. This is even more true today in the
'Jewish state', because many public services, such as water, gas and electricity, fall in
this category. Classical Judaism could not exist even for a whole week without using
some non-Jews.

But without special dispensations there is a great obstacle in employing non-
Jews to do these Saturday jobs; for talmudic regulations forbid Jews to ask a Gentile
to do on the sabbath any work which they themselves are banned from doing. (19) I
shall describe two of the many types of dispensation used for such purposes.

First, there is the method of 'hinting', which depends on the casuistic logic
according to which a sinful demand becomes blameless if it is phrased slyly. As rule,
the hint must be obscure', but in cases of extreme need a 'clear' hint is allowed. For
example, in a recent booklet on religious observance for the use of Israeli soldiers, the
latter are taught how to talk to Arab workers employed by the army as sabbath-Goy.
In urgent cases, such as when it is very cold and a fire must be lit, or when light is
needed for a religious service, a pious Jewish soldier may use a 'clear' hint and tell the
Arab: 'It is cold (or dark) here'. But normally an 'obscure' hint must suffice, for
example: 'It would be more pleasant if it were warmer here' (20) This method of
'hinting' is particularly repulsive and degrading inasmuch as it is normally used on
non-Jews who, due to their poverty or subordinate social position, are wholly in the
power of their Jewish employer. A Gentile servant (or employee of the Israeli army)
who does not train himself to interpret 'obscure hints' as orders will be pitilessly
dismissed.

The second method is used in cases where what the Gentile is required to do on
Saturday is not an occasional task or personal service, which can be 'hinted' at as the
need arises, but a routine or regular job without constant Jewish supervision.
According to this method - called 'implicit inclusion' (havla'ah) of the sabbath among
weekdays - the Gentile is hired 'for the whole week (or year)', without the sabbath
being so much as mentioned in the contract. But in reality work is only performed on
the sabbath. This method was used in the past in hiring a Gentile to put out the
candles

[47] in the synagogue after the sabbath-eve prayer (rather than wastefully
allowing them to burn out). Modern Israeli examples are: regulating the water supply
or watching over water reservoirs on Saturdays. (21)

A similar idea is used also in the case of Jews, but for a different end. Jews are
forbidden to receive any payment for work done on the sabbath, even if the work
itself is permitted. The chief example here concerns the sacred professions: the rabbi
or talmudic scholar who preaches or teaches on the sabbath, the cantor who sings
only on Saturdays and other holy days (on which similar bans apply), the sexton and
similar officials. In talmudic times, and in some countries even several centuries
after, such jobs were unpaid. But later, when these became salaried professions, the
dispensation of 'implicit inclusion was used, and they were hired on a 'monthly' or
'yearly' basis. In the case of rabbis and talmudic scholars the problem is particularly
complicated, because the Talmud forbids them to receive any payment for preaching,

41

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

teaching or studying talmudic matters even on weekdays. (22) For them an additional
dispensation stipulates that their salary is not really a salary at all but 'compensation
for idleness' (dmey batalah). As a combined result of these two fictions, what is in
reality payment for work done mainly, or even solely, on the sabbath is
transmogrified into payment for being idle on weekdays.

Social Aspects of Dispensations

Two social features of these and many similar practices deserve special
mention.

First, a dominant feature of this system of dispensations, and of classical
Judaism inasmuch as it is based on them, is deception - deception primarily of God, if
this word can be used for an imaginary being so easily deceived by the rabbis, who
consider themselves cleverer than him. No greater contrast can be conceived than
that between the God of the Bible (particularly of the greater prophets) and of the
God of classical Judaism. The latter is more like the early Roman Jupiter, who was
likewise bamboozled by his worshipers, or the gods described in Frazer's Golden
Bough.

From the ethical point of view, classical Judaism represents a process of
degeneration, which is still going on; and this degeneration into a tribal collection of
empty rituals and magic superstitions has very important social and political
consequences. For it must be remembered that it is precisely the superstitions of
classical Judaism which have the greatest hold on the Jewish masses, rather than
those parts of the Bible or

[48] even the Talmud which are of real religious and ethical value. (The same can be
observed also in other religions which are now undergoing revival.) What is popularly
regarded as the most 'holy' and solemn occasion of the Jewish liturgical year,
attended even by very many Jews who are otherwise far from religion? It is the Kol
Nidrey prayer on the eve of Yom Kippur - a chanting of a particularly absurd and
deceptive dispensation, by which all private vows made to God in the following year
are declared in advance to be null and void. (23) Or, in the area of personal religion,
the Qadish prayer, said on days of mourning by sons for their parents in order to
elevate their departed souls to paradise - a recitation of an Aramaic text,
incomprehensible to the great majority. Quite obviously, the. popular regard given to
these, the most superstitious parts of the Jewish religion, is not given to its better
parts.

Together with the deception of God goes the deception of other Jews, mainly in
the interest of the Jewish ruling class. It is characteristic that no dispensations were
allowed in the specific interest of the Jewish poor. For example, Jews who were
starving but not actually on the point of death were never allowed by their rabbis
(who did not often go hungry themselves) to eat any sort of forbidden food, though
kosher food is usually more expensive.

The second dominant feature of the dispensations is that they are in large part
obviously motivated by the spirit of profit. And it is this combination of hypocrisy and
the profit motive which increasingly dominated classical Judaism. In Israel, where

42

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

the process goes on, this is dimly perceived by popular opinion, despite all the official
brainwashing promoted by the education system and the media. The religious
establishment - the rabbis and the religious parties - and, by association, to some
extent the Orthodox community as a whole, are quite unpopular in Israel. One of the
most important reasons for this is precisely their reputation for duplicity and
venality. Of course, popular opinion (which may often be prejudiced) is not the same
thing as social analysis; but in this particular case it is actually true that the Jewish
religious establishment does have a strong tendency to chicanery and graft, due to the
corrupting influence of the Orthodox Jewish religion. Because in general social life
religion is only one of the social influences, its effect on the mass of believers is not
nearly so great as on the rabbis and leaders of the religious parties. Those religious
Jews in Israel who are honest, as the majority of them undoubtedly are, are so not
because of the influence of their religion and rabbis, but in spite of it. On the other
hand, in those few areas of public

[49] life in Israel which are wholly dominated by religious circles, the level of
chicanery, venality and corruption is notorious, far surpassing the 'average' level
tolerated by general, non-religious Israeli society.

In Chapter 4 we shall see how the dominance of the profit motive in classical
Judaism is connected with the structure of Jewish society and its articulation with the
general society in the midst of which Jews lived in the 'classical' period. Here I merely
want to observe that the profit motive is not characteristic of Judaism in all periods of
its history. Only the platonist confusion which seeks for the metaphysical timeless
'essence' of Judaism, instead of looking at the historical changes in Jewish society,
has obscured this fact. (And this confusion has been greatly encouraged by zionism,
in its reliance on 'historical rights' ahistorically derived from the Bible.) Thus,
apologists of Judaism claim, quite correctly, that the Bible is hostile to the profit
motive while the Talmud is indifferent to it. But this was caused by the very different
social conditions in which they were composed. As was pointed out above, the
Talmud was composed in two well-defined areas, in a period when the Jews living
there constituted a society based on agriculture and consisting mainly of peasants -
very different indeed from the society of classical Judaism.

In Chapter 5 we shall deal in detail with the hostile attitudes and deceptions
practiced by classical Judaism against non-Jews. But more important as a social
feature is the profit- motivated deception practiced by the rich Jews against poor
fellow Jews (such as the dispensation concerning interest on loans). Here I must say,
in spite of my opposition to marxism both in philosophy and as a social theory, that
Marx was quite right when, in his two articles about Judaism, he characterized it as
dominated by profit-seeking - provided this is limited to Judaism as he knew it, that
is, to classical Judaism which in his youth had already entered the period of its
dissolution. True, he stated this arbitrarily, ahistorically and without proof. Obviously
he came to his conclusion by intuition; but his intuition in this case - and with the
proper historical limitation - was right.

43

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

[50]

Chapter 3

The Weight of History

A great deal of nonsense has been written in the attempt to provide a social or
mystical interpretation of Jewry or Judaism 'as a whole'. This cannot be done, for the
social structure of the Jewish people and the ideological structure of Judaism have
changed profoundly through the ages. Four major phases can be distinguished:

(1) The phase of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah, until the destruction
the first Temple (587 BC) and the Babylonian exile. (Much of the Old Testament is
concerned with this period, although most major books of the Old Testament,
including the Pentateuch as we know it, were actually composed after that date.)
Socially, these ancient Jewish kingdoms were quite similar to the neighboring
kingdoms of Palestine and Syria; and - as a careful reading of the Prophets reveals -
the similarity extended to the religious cults practiced by the great majority of the
people. (1) The ideas that were to become typical of later Judaism - including in
particular ethnic segregationism and monotheistic exclusivism - were at this stage
confined to small circles of priests and prophets, whose social influence depended on
royal support.

(2) The phase of the dual centers, Palestine and Mesopotamia, from the first
'Return from Babylon' (537 BC) until about AD 500. It is characterized by the
existence of these two autonomous Jewish societies, both based primarily on
agriculture, on which the 'Jewish religion', as previously elaborated in priestly and
scribal circles, was imposed by the force and authority of the Persian empire. The Old
Testament Book of Ezra contains an account of the activities of Ezra the priest, 'a
ready scribe in the law of Moses', who was empowered by King Artaxerxes I of Persia
to 'set magistrates and judges' over the Jews of Palestine, so that 'whosoever will not
do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily
upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or
to imprisonment’ (2) And in the Book of Neherniali - cupbearer to King Artaxerxes
who was appointed Persian governor of Judea, with even greater powers - we see to
what extent foreign (nowadays one would say 'imperialist') coercion was instrumental
in imposing the Jewish religion, with lasting results.

[51]

In both centers, Jewish autonomy persisted during most of this period and
deviations from religious orthodoxy were repressed. Exceptions to this rule occurred

44

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

when the religious aristocracy itself got 'infected' with Hellenistic ideas (from 300 to
166 BC and again under Herod the Great and his successors, from 50 BC to AD 70),
or when it was split in reaction to new developments (for example, the division
between the two great parties, the Pharisees and the Sadduceans, which emerged in
about 140 BC). However, the moment any one party triumphed, it used the coercive
machinery of the Jewish autonomy (or, for a short period, independence) to impose
its own religious views on all the Jews in both centers.

During most of this time, especially after the collapse of the Persian empire and
until about AD 200, the Jews outside the two centers were free from Jewish religious
coercion. Among the papyri preserved in Elephantine (in Upper Egypt) there is a
letter dating from 419 BC containing the text of an edict by King Darius II of Persia
which instructs the Jews of Egypt as to the details of the observance of Passover. (3)
But the Hellenistic kingdoms, the Roman Republic and early Roman Empire did not
bother with such things. The freedom that Hellenistic Jews enjoyed outside Palestine
allowed the creation of a Jewish literature written in Greek, which was subsequently
rejected in toto by Judaism and whose remains were preserved by Christianity. (4)
The very rise of Christianity was possible because of this relative freedom of the
Jewish communities outside the two centers. The experience of the Apostle Paul is
significant: in Corinth, when the local Jewish community accused Paul of heresy, the
Roman governor Galho dismissed the case at once, refusing to be a 'judge of such
matters'; (5) but in Judea the governor Festus felt obliged to take legal cognizance of
a purely religious internal Jewish dispute. (6)

This tolerance came to an end in about AD 200, when the Jewish religion, as
meanwhile elaborated and evolved in Palestine, was imposed by the Roman
authorities upon all the Jews of the Empire. (7)

(3) The phase which we have defined as classical Judaism and which will be
discussed below. (8)

(4) The modern phase, characterized by the breakdown of the totalitarian
Jewish community and its power, and by attempts to reimpose it, of which Zionism is
the most important. This phase begins in Holland in the 17th century, in France and
Austria (excluding Hungary) in the late 18th century, in most other European
countries in the middle of the 19th century, and

[52] in some Islamic countries in the 20th century. (The Jews of Yemen were still
living in the medieval 'classical' phase in 1948). Something concerning these
developments will be said later on.

Between the second phase and the third, that of classical Judaism, there is a gap
of several centuries in which our present knowledge of Jews and Jewish society is
very slight, and the scant information we do have is all derived from external (non-
Jewish) sources. In the countries of Latin Christendom we have absolutely no Jewish
literary records until the middle of the 10th century; internal Jewish information,
mostly from religious literature, becomes more abundant only in the 11th and
particularly the 12th century. Before that, we are wholly dependent first on Roman
and then on Christian evidence. In the Islamic countries the information gap is not
quite so big; still, very little is known about Jewish society before AD 800 and about
the changes it must have undergone during the three preceding centuries.

45

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Major Features of Classical Judaism

Let us therefore ignore those 'dark ages', and for the sake of convenience begin
with the two centuries 1000-1200, for which abundant information is available from
both internal and external sources on all the important Jewish centers, east and west.
Classical Judaism, which is clearly discernible in this period, has undergone very few
changes since then, and (in the guise of Orthodox Judaism) is still a powerful force
today.

How can that classical Judaism be characterized, and what are the social
differences distinguishing it from earlier phases of Judaism? I believe that there are
three such major features.

1) Classical Jewish society has no peasants, and in this it differs
profoundly from earlier Jewish societies in the two centers, Palestine and
Mesopotamia. It is difficult for us, in modern times, to understand what this means.
We have to make an effort to imagine what serfdom was like; the enormous
difference in literacy, let alone education, between village and town throughout this
period; the incomparably greater freedom enjoyed by all the small minority who were
not peasants - in order to realize that during the whole of the classical period the
Jews, in spite of all the persecutions to which they were subjected, formed an integral
part of the privileged classes. Jewish historiography, especially in English, is
misleading on this point inasmuch as it tends to focus on Jewish poverty and anti-
Jewish discrimination. Both were real enough at times; but the poorest Jewish
craftsman, peddler, land-lord's steward or petty cleric was immeasurably better off
than a

[53] serf. This was particularly true in those European countries where serfdom
persisted into the 19th century, whether in a partial or extreme form: Prussia, Austria
(including Hungary), Poland and the Polish lands taken by Russia. And it is not
without significance that, prior to the beginning of the great Jewish migration of
modern times (around 1880), a large majority of all Jews were living in those areas
and that their most important social function there was to mediate the oppression of
the peasants on behalf of the nobility and the Crown.

Everywhere, classical Judaism developed hatred and contempt for agriculture
as an occupation and for peasants as a class, even more than for other Gentiles - a
hatred of which I know no parallel in other societies. This is immediately apparent to
anyone who is familiar with the Yiddish or Hebrew literature of the 19th and 20th
centuries. (9)

Most east-European Jewish socialists (that is, members of exclusively or
predominantly Jewish parties and factions) are guilty of never pointing out this fact;
indeed, many were themselves tainted with a ferocious anti-peasant attitude
inherited from classical Judaism. Of course, Zionist 'socialists' were the worst in this
respect, but others, such as the Bund, were not much better. A typical example is
their opposition to the formation of peasant co-operatives promoted by the Catholic
clergy, on the ground that this was 'an act of antisemitism'. This attitude is by no

46

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

means dead even now; it could be seen very clearly in the racist views held by many
Jewish 'dissidents' in the USSR regarding the Russian people, and also in the lack of
discussion of this background by so many Jewish socialists, such as Isaac Deutscher.
The whole racist propaganda on the theme of the supposed superiority of Jewish
morality and intellect (in which many Jewish socialists were prominent) is bound up
with a lack of sensitivity for the suffering of that major part of humanity who were
especially oppressed during the last thousand years - the peasants.

2) Classical Jewish society was particularly dependent on kings or on
nobles with royal powers. In the next chapter we discuss various Jewish laws
directed against Gentiles, and in particular laws which command Jews to revile
Gentiles and refrain from praising them or their customs. These laws allow one and
only one exception: a Gentile king, or a locally powerful magnate (in Hebrew paritz,
in Yiddish pooretz ). A king is praised and prayed for, and he is obeyed not only in
most civil matters but also in some religious ones. As we shall see Jewish doctors,
who are in general forbidden to save the lives of ordinary Gentiles on the Sabbath, are
commanded to do their utmost in healing magnates and rulers;

[54] this partly explains why kings and noblemen, popes and bishops often employed
Jewish physicians. But not only physicians. Jewish tax and customs collectors, or (in
eastern Europe) bailiffs of manors could be depended upon to do their utmost for the
king or baron, in a way that a Christian could not always be.

The legal status of a Jewish community in the period of classical Judaism was
normally based on a 'privilege' - a charter granted by a king or prince (or, in Poland
after the 16th century, by a powerful nobleman) to the Jewish community and
conferring on it the rights of autonomy - that is, investing the rabbis with the power
to dictate to the other Jews. An important part of such privileges, going as far back as
the late Roman Empire, is the creation of a Jewish clerical estate which, exactly like
the Christian clergy in medieval times, is exempt from paying taxes to the
sovereign and is allowed to impose taxes on the people under its control - the Jews -
for its own benefit. It is interesting to note that this deal between the late Roman
Empire and the rabbis antedates by at least one hundred years the very similar
privileges granted by Constantine the Great and his successors to the Christian clergy.

From about AD 200 until the early 5th century, the legal position of Jewry in the
Roman Empire was as follows. A hereditary Jewish Patriarch (residing in Tiberias in
Palestine) was recognized both as a high dignitary in the official hierarchy of the
Empire and as supreme chief of all the Jews in the Empire. (10) As a Roman official,
the Patriarch was vir illustris, of the same high official class which included the
consuls, the top military commanders of the Empire and the chief ministers around
the throne (the Sacred Consistory), and was out-ranked only by the imperial family.
In fact, the Illustrious Patriarch (as he is invariably styled in imperial decrees) out¬
ranked the provincial governor of Palestine. Emperor Theodosius I, the Great, a pious
and orthodox Christian, executed his governor of Palestine for insulting the
Patriarch.

At the same time, all the rabbis - who had to be designated by the Patriarch -
were freed from the most oppressive Roman taxes and received many official
privileges, such as exemption from serving on town councils (which was also one of

47

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

the first privileges later granted to the Christian clergy). In addition, the Patriarch
was empowered to tax the Jews and to discipline them by imposing fines, flogging
and other punishments. He used this power in order to suppress Jewish heresies and
(as we know from the Talmud) to persecute Jewish preachers who accused him of
taxing the Jewish poor for his personal benefit.

We know from Jewish sources that the tax-exempt rabbis

[55] used excommunication and other means within their power to enhance the
religious hegemony of the Patriarch. We also hear, mostly indirectly, of the hate and
scorn that many of the Jewish peasants and urban poor in Palestine had for the
rabbis, as well as of the contempt of the rabbis for the Jewish poor (usually expressed
as contempt for the 'ignorant')- Nevertheless, this typical colonial arrangement
continued, as it was backed by the might of the Roman Empire.

Similar arrangements existed, within each country, during the whole period of
classical Judaism. Their social effects on the Jewish communities differed, however,
according to the size of each community. Where there were few Jews, there was
normally little social differentiation within the community, which tended to be
composed of rich and middle-lass Jews, most of whom had considerable rabbinical-
talmudic education. But in countries where the number of Jews increased and a big
class of Jewish poor appeared, the same cleavage as the one described above
manifested itself, and we observe the rabbinical class, in alliance with the Jewish rich,
oppressing the Jewish poor in its own interest as well as in the interest of the state -
that is, of the Crown and the nobility.

This was, in particular, the situation in pre-1795 Poland. The specific
circumstances of Polish Jewry will be outlined below. Here I only want to point out
that because of the formation of a large Jewish community in that country, a deep
cleavage between the Jewish upper class (the rabbis and the rich) and the Jewish
masses developed there from the 18th century and continued throughout the 19th
century. So long as the Jewish community had power over its members, the incipient
revolts of the poor, who had to bear the main brunt of taxation, were suppressed by
the combined force of the naked coercion of Jewish 'self-rule' and religious sanction.

Because of all this, throughout the classical period (as well as in modern times)
the rabbis were the most loyal, not to say Zealous, supporters of the powers that be;
and the more reactionary the regime, the more rabbinical support it had.

3) The society of classical Judaism is in total opposition to the
surrounding non-Jewish society, except the king (or the nobles, when
they take over the state). This is amply illustrated in Chapter 5.

The consequences of these three social features, taken together, go a long way
towards explaining the history of classical Jewish communities both in Christian and
in Muslim countries.

The position of the Jews is particularly favorable under strong regimes which
have retained a feudal character, and in which national consciousness, even at a

48

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

rudimentary level, has

[56] not yet begun to develop. It is even more favorable in countries such as pre-1795
Poland or in the Iberian kingdoms before the latter half of the 15th century, where the
formation of a nationally based powerful feudal monarchy was temporarily or
permanently arrested. In fact, classical Judaism flourishes best under strong regimes
which are dissociated from most classes in society, and in such regimes the Jews
fulfill one of the functions of a middle class - but in a permanently dependent form.
For this reason they are opposed not only by the peasantry (whose opposition is then
unimportant, except for the occasional and rare popular revolt) but more importantly
by the non-Jewish middle class (which was on the rise in Europe), and by the
plebeian part of the clergy; and they are protected by the upper clergy and the
nobility. But in those countries where, feudal anarchy having been curbed, the
nobility enters into partnership with the king (and with at least part of the
bourgeoisie) to rule the state, which assumes a national or protonational form, the
position of the Jews deteriorates.

This general scheme, valid for Muslim and Christian countries alike, will now be
illustrated briefly by a few examples.

England, France and Italy

Since the first period of Jewish residence in England was so brief, and coincided
with the development of the English national feudal monarchy, this country can serve
as the best illustration of the above scheme. Jews were brought over to England by
William the Conqueror, as part of the French-speaking Norman ruling class, with the
primary duty of granting loans to those lords, spiritual and temporal, who were
otherwise unable to pay their feudal dues (which were particularly heavy in England
and more rigorously exacted in that period than in any other European monarchy).
Their greatest royal patron was Henry II, and the Magna Carta marked the beginning
of their decline, which continued during the conflict of the barons with Henry III. The
temporary resolution of this conflict by Edward I, with the formation of Parliament
and of 'ordinary' and fixed taxation, was accompanied by the expulsion of the Jews.

Similarly, in France the Jews flourished during the formation of the strong
feudal principalities in the 11th and 12th centuries, including the Royal Domain; and
their best protector among the Capetian kings was Louis VII (1137-80).
notwithstanding his deep and sincere Christian piety. At that time the Jews of France
counted themselves as knights (in Hebrew, parashim ) and the leading Jewish
authority in France, Rabbenu Tam, warns them never to accept an invitation by a

[57] feudal lord to settle on his domain, unless they are accorded privileges similar to
those of other knights. The decline in their position beings with Philip II Augustus,
originator of the political and military alliance of the Crown with the rising urban
commune movement, and plummets under Philip IV the Handsome, who convoked
the first Estates General for the whole of France in order to gain support against the
pope. The final expulsion of Jews from the whole of France is closely bound up with
the firm establishment of the Crown's rights of taxation and the national character of
the monarchy.

49

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Similar examples can be given from other European countries where Jews were
living during that period. Reserving Christian Spain and Poland for a more detailed
discussion, we remark that in Italy, where many city states had a republican form of
power, the same regularity is discernible. Jews flourished especially in the Papal
States, in the twin feudal kingdoms of Sicily and Naples (until their expulsion, on
Spanish orders, circa 1500) and in the feudal enclaves of Piedmont. But in the great
commercial and independent cities such as Florence their number was small and
their social role unimportant.

The Muslim World

The same general scheme applies to Jewish communities during the classical
period in Muslim countries as well, except for the important fact that expulsion of
Jews, being contrary to Islamic law, was virtually unknown there. (Medieval Catholic
canon law, on the other hand, neither commands nor forbids such expulsion.)

Jewish communities flourished in the famous, but socially misinterpreted,
Jewish Golden Age in Muslim countries under regimes which were particularly
dissociated from the great majority of the people they ruled, and whose power rested
on nothing but naked force and a mercenary army. The best example is Muslim
Spain, where the very real Jewish Golden Age (of Hebrew poetry, grammar,
philosophy etc) begins precisely with the fall of the Spanish Umayyad caliphate after
the death of the de facto ruler, al-Mansur, in 1002, and the establishment of the
numerous ta'ifa (faction) kingdoms, all based on naked force. The rise of the famous
Jewish commander-in-chief and prime minister of the kingdom of Granada, Samuel
the Chief (Shmu'el Hannagid, died 1056), who was also one of the greatest Hebrew
poets of all ages, was based primarily on the fact that the kingdom which he served
was a tyranny of a rather small Berber military force over the Arabic-speaking
inhabitants. A similar situation obtained in the other ta'ifa

[58] Arab-Spanish kingdoms. The position of the Jews declined somewhat with the
establishment of the Almoravid regime (in 1086-90) and became quite precarious
under the strong and popular Almohad regime (after 1147) when, as a result of
persecutions, the Jews migrated to the Christian Spanish kingdoms, where the power
of the kings was still very slight.

Similar observations can be made regarding the states of the Muslim East. The
first state in which the Jewish community reached a position of important political
influence was the Fatimid empire, especially after the conquest of Egypt in 969,
because it was based on the rule of an Isma'ili-shi'ite religious minority. The same
phenomenon can be observed in the Seljuk states - based on feudal-type armies,
mercenaries and, increasingly, on slave troops ( mamluks ) - and in their successor
states. The favor of Saladin to the Jewish communities, first in Egypt, then in other
parts of this expanding empire, was based not only on his real personal qualities of
tolerance, charity and deep political wisdom, but equally on his rise to power as a
rebellious commander of mercenaries freshly arrived in Egypt and then as usurper of
the power of the dynasty which he and his father and uncle before him had served.

But perhaps the best Islamic example is the state where the Jews' position was
better than anywhere else in the East since the fall of the ancient Persian empire - the

50

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Ottoman empire, particularly during its heyday in the 16th century, (n) As is well
known, the Ottoman regime was based initially on the almost complete exclusion of
the Turks themselves (not to mention other Muslims by birth) from positions of
political power and from the most important part of the army, the Janissary corps,
both of which were manned by the sultan's Christian-born slaves, abducted in
childhood and educated in special schools. Until the end of the 16th century no free¬
born Turk could become a Janissary or hold any important government office. In
such a regime, the role of the Jews in their sphere was quite analogous to that of the
Janissaries in theirs. Thus the position of the Jews was best under a regime which
was politically most dissociated from the peoples it ruled. With the admission of the
Turks themselves (as well as some other Muslim peoples, such as the Albanians) to
the ruling class of the Ottoman empire, the position of the Jews declines. However,
this decline was not very sharp, because of the continuing arbitrariness and non¬
national character of the Ottoman regime.

This point is very important, in my opinion, because the relatively good
situation of Jews under Islam in general, and under certain Islamic regimes in
particular, is used by many Palestinian and other Arab propagandists in a very
ignorant,

[59] albeit perhaps well-meaning, way. First, they generalize and reduce serious
questions of politics and history to mere slogans. Granted that the position of Jews
was, on average, much better under Islam than under Christianity - the important
question to ask is, under what regimes was it better or worse? We have seen where
such an analysis leads.

But, secondly and more importantly: in a pre-modern state, a 'better' position of
the Jewish community normally entailed a greater degree of tyranny exercised within
this community by the rabbis against other Jews. To give one example: certainly, the
figure of Saladin is one which, considering his period, inspires profound respect. But
together with this respect, I for one cannot forget that the enhanced privileges he
granted to the Jewish community in Egypt and his appointment of Maimonides as
their Chief ( Nagid ) immediately unleashed severe religious persecution of Jewish
'sinners' by the rabbis. For instance, Jewish 'priests' (supposed descendants of the
ancient priests who had served in the Temple) are forbidden to marry not only
prostitutes (12) but also divorcees. This latter prohibition, which has always caused
difficulties, was infringed during the anarchy under the last Fatimid rulers (circa
1130-80) by such 'priests' who, contrary to Jewish religious law, were married to
Jewish divorcees in Islamic courts (which are nominally empowered to marry non-
Muslims). The greater tolerance towards 'the Jews' instituted by Saladin upon his
accession to power enabled Maimonides to issue orders to the rabbinical courts in
Egypt to seize all Jews who had gone through such forbidden marriages and have
them flogged until they 'agreed' to divorce their wives. (13) Similarly, in the Ottoman
empire the powers of the rabbinical courts were very great and consequently most
pernicious. Therefore the position of Jews in Muslim countries in the past should
never be used as a political argument in contemporary (or future) contexts.

Christian Spain

51

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

I have left to the last a discussion of the two countries where the position of the
Jewish community and the internal development of classical Judaism were most
important - Christian Spain (14) (or rather the Iberian peninsula, including Portugal)
and pre-1795 Poland.

Politically, the position of Jews in the Christian Spanish kingdoms was the
highest ever attained by Jews in any country (except some of the ta'ifas and under the
Fatimids) before the 19th century. Many Jews served officially as Treasurers General

[60] to the kings of Castile, regional and general tax collectors, diplomats
(representing their king in foreign courts, both Muslim and Christian, even outside
Spain), courtiers and advisers to rulers and great noblemen. And in no other country
except Poland did the Jewish community wield such great legal powers over the Jews
or used them so widely and publicly, including the power to inflict capital
punishment. From the 11th century the persecution of Karaites (a heretical Jewish
sect) by flogging them to death if unrepentant was common in Castile. Jewish women
who cohabited with Gentiles had their noses cut off by rabbis who explained that 'in
this way she will lose her beauty and her non-Jewish lover will come to hate her'.
Jews who had the effrontery to attack a rabbinical judge had their hands cut off.
Adulterers were imprisoned, after being made to run the gauntlet through the Jewish
quarter. In religious disputes, those thought to be heretics had their tongues cut out.

Historically, all this was associated with feudal anarchy and with the attempt of
a few 'strong' kings to rule through sheer force, disregarding the parliamentary
institutions, the Cortes, which had already come into existence. In this struggle, not
only the political and financial power of the Jews but also their military power (at
least in the most important kingdom, Castile) was very significant. One example will
suffice: both feudal mis- government and Jewish political influence in Castile reached
their peak under Pedro I, justly nick-named the Cruel. The Jewish communities of
Toledo, Burgos and many other cities served practically as his garrisons in the long
civil war between him and his half-brother, Henry of Trastamara, who after his
victory became Henry II (1369-79). (15) The same Pedro I gave the Jews of Castile
the right to establish a country-wide inquisition against Jewish religious deviants -
more than one hundred years before the establishment of the more famous Catholic
Holy Inquisition.

As in other western European countries, the gradual emergence of national
consciousness around the monarchy, which began under the house of Trastamara
and after ups and downs reached a culmination under the Catholic Kings Ferdinand
and Isabella, was accompanied first by a decline in the position of the Jews, then by
popular movements and pressures against them and finally by their expulsion. On the
whole the Jews were defended by the nobility and upper clergy. It was the more
plebeian sections of the church, particularly the mendicant orders, involved in the life
of the lower classes, which were hostile to them. The great enemies of the Jews,
Torquemada and Cardinal Ximenes, were also great reformers of the Spanish church,
making it much less corrupt and much more dependent

[61] on the monarchy instead of being the preserve of the feudal aristocracy.

Poland

52

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

The old pre-1795 Poland - a feudal republic with an elective king- is a converse
example; it illustrates how before the advent of the modern state the position of the
Jews was socially most important, and their internal autonomy greatest, under a
regime which was completely retarded to the point of utter degeneracy.

Due to many causes, medieval Poland lagged in its development behind
countries like England and France; a strong feudal-type monarchy - yet without any
parliamentary institutions - was formed there only in the 14th century, especially
under Casimir the Great (1333-70). Immediately after his death, changes of dynasty
and other factors led to a very rapid development of the power of the noble magnates,
then also of the petty nobility, so that by 1572 the process of reduction of the king to a
figure head and exclusion of all other non-noble estates from political power was
virtually complete. In the following two hundred years, the lack of government turned
into an acknowledged anarchy, to the point where a court decision in a case affecting
a nobleman was only a legal license to wage a private war to enforce the verdict (for
there was no other way to enforce it) and where feuds between great noble houses in
the 18th century involved private armies numbering tens of thousands, much larger
than the derisory forces of the official army of the Republic.

This process was accompanied by a debasement in the position of the Polish
peasants (who had been free in the early Middle Ages) to the point of utter serfdom,
hardly distinguishable from outright slavery and certainly the worst in Europe. The
desire of noblemen in neighboring countries to enjoy the power of the Polish pan over
his peasants (including the power of life and death without any right of appeal) was
instrumental in the territorial expansion of Poland. The situation in the 'eastern'
lands of Poland (Byelorussia and the Ukraine) - colonized and settled by newly
enserfed peasants - was worst of all. (16)

A small number of Jews (albeit in important positions) had apparently been
living in Poland since the creation of the Polish state. A significant Jewish
immigration into that country began in the 13th century and increased under Casimir
the Great, with the decline in the Jewish position in western and then in central
Europe. Not very much is known about Polish Jewry in

[62] that period. But with the decline of the monarchy in the 16th century -
particularly under Sigismund I the Old (1506-45) and his son Sigismund II Augustus
(1548-72) - Polish Jewry burst into social and political prominence accompanied, as
usual, with a much greater degree of autonomy. It was at this time that Poland's Jews
were granted their greatest privileges, culminating in the establishment of the famous
Committee of Four Lands, a very effective autonomous Jewish organ of rule and
jurisdiction over all the Jews in Poland's four divisions. One of its many important
functions was to collect all the taxes from Jews all over the country, deducting part of
the yield for its own use and for the use of local Jewish communities, and passing the
rest on to the state treasury.

What was the social role of Polish Jewry from the beginning of the 16th century
until 1795? With the decline of royal power, the king's usual role in relation to the
Jews was rapidly taken over by the nobility - with lasting and tragic results both for
the Jews themselves and for the common people of the Polish republic. All over
Poland the nobles used Jews as their agents to undermine the commercial power of

53

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

the Royal Towns, which were weak in any case. Alone among the countries of western
Christendom, in Poland a nobleman's property inside a Royal Town was exempt from
the town's laws and guild regulations. In most cases the nobles settled their Jewish
clients in such properties, thus giving rise to a lasting conflict. The Jews were usually
'victorious', in the sense that the towns could neither subjugate nor drive them off;
but in the frequent popular riots Jewish lives (and, even more, Jewish property) were
lost. The nobles still got the profits. Similar or worse consequences followed from the
frequent use of Jews as commercial agents of noblemen: they won exemption from
most Polish tolls and tariffs, to the loss of the native bourgeoisie.

But the most lasting and tragic results occurred in the eastern provinces of
Poland - roughly, the area east of the present border, including almost the whole of
the present Ukraine and reaching up to the Great-Russian language frontier. (Until
1667 the Polish border was far east of the Dnieper, so that Poltava, for example, was
inside Poland.) In those wide territories there were hardly any Royal Towns. The
towns were established by nobles and belonged to them - and they were settled
almost exclusively by Jews. Until 1939, the population of many Polish towns east of
the river Bug was at least 90 per cent Jewish, and this demographic phenomenon was
even more pronounced in that area of Tsarist Russia annexed from Poland and
Icnown as the Jewish Pale. Outside the towns very many Jews throughout Poland,
but especially in the east, were

[63] employed as the direct supervisors and oppressors of the enserfed peasantry - as
bailiffs of whole manors (invested with the landlord's full coercive powers) or as
lessees of particular feudal monopolies such as the corn mill, the liquor still and
public house (with the right of armed search of peasant houses for illicit stills) or the
bakery, and as collectors of customary feudal dues of all kinds. In short, in eastern
Poland, under the rule of the nobles (and of the feudalized church, formed exclusively
from the nobility) the Jews were both the immediate exploiters of the
peasantry and virtually the only town-dwellers.

No doubt, most of the profit they extracted from the peasants was passed on to
the landlords, in one way or another. No doubt, the oppression and subjugation of the
Jews by the nobles were severe, and the historical record tells many a harrowing tale
of the hardship and humiliation inflicted by noblemen on 'their' Jews. But, as we have
remarked, the peasants suffered worse oppression at the hands of both landlords and
Jews; and one may assume that, except in times of peasant uprisings, the full weight
of the Jewish religious laws against Gentiles fell upon the peasants. As will be seen in
the next chapter, these laws are suspended or mitigated in cases where it is feared
that they might arouse dangerous hostility towards Jews; but the hostility of the
peasants could be disregarded as ineffectual so long as the Jewish bailiff could shelter
under the 'peace' of a great lord.

The situation stagnated until the advent of the modern state, by which time
Poland had been dismembered. Therefore Poland was the only big country in western
Christendom from which the Jews were never expelled. A new middle class could not
arise out of the utterly enslaved peasantry; and the old bourgeoisie was
geographically limited and commercially weak, and therefore powerless. Overall,
matters got steadily worse, but without any substantial change.

54

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Internal conditions within the Jewish community moved in a similar course. In
the period 1500-1795, one of the most superstition-ridden in the history of Judaism,
Polish Jewry was the most superstitious and fanatic of all Jewish communities. The
considerable power of the Jewish autonomy was used increasingly to stifle all original
or innovative thought, to promote the most shameless exploitation of the Jewish poor
by the Jewish rich in alliance with the rabbis, and to justify- the Jews' role in the
oppression of the peasants in the service of the nobles. Here, too, there was no way
out except by liberation from the outside. Pre-1795 Poland, where the social role of
the Jews was more important than in any other classical diaspora, illustrates better
than any other country the bankruptcy of classical Judaism.

[64]

Anti-Jewish Persecutions

During the whole period of classical Judaism, Jews were often subjected to
persecutions (17) - and this fact now serves as the main 'argument' of the apologists of
the Jewish religion with its anti-Gentile laws and especially of Zionism. Of course, the
Nazi extermination of five to six million European Jews is supposed to be the
crowning argument in that line. We must therefore consider this phenomenon and its
contemporary aspect. This is particularly important in view of the fact that the
descendants of the Jews of pre-1795 Poland (often called east-European Jews' - as
opposed to Jews from the German cultural domain of the early 19th century,
including the present Austria, Bohemia and Moravia) now wield predominant
political power in Israel as well as in the Jewish communities in the USA and other
English-speaking countries; and, because of their particular past history, this mode,
of thinking is especially entrenched among them, much more than among other Jews.

We must, first, draw a sharp distinction between the persecutions of Jews
during the classical period on the one hand, and the Nazi extermination on the other.
The former were popular movements, coming from below; whereas the latter was
inspired, organized and carried out from above: indeed, by state officials. Such acts as
the Nazi state- organized extermination are relatively rare in human history, although
other cases do exist (the extermination of the Tasmanians and several other colonial
peoples, for example). Moreover, the Nazis intended to wipe out other peoples
besides the Jews: Gypsies were exterminated like Jews, and the extermination of
Slavs was well under way, with the systematic massacre of millions of civilians and
prisoners of war. However, it is the recurrent persecution of Jews in so many
countries during the classical period which is the model (and the excuse) for the
zionist politicians in their persecution of the Palestinians, as well as the argument
used by apologists of Judaism in general; and it is this phenomenon which we
consider now.

It must be pointed out that in all the worst anti-Jewish persecutions, that is,
where Jews were killed, the ruling elite - the emperor and the pope, the kings, the
higher aristocracy and the upper clergy, as well as the rich bourgeoisie in the
autonomous cities - were always on the side of the Jews. The latter's enemies
belonged to the more oppressed and exploited classes and those close to them in daily
life and interests, such as the friars of the mendicant orders. (18) It is true that

55

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

[65] in most (but I think not in all) cases members of the elite defended the Jews
neither out of considerations of humanity nor because of sympathy to the Jews as
such, but for the type of reason used generally by rulers in justification of their
interests - the fact that the Jews were useful and profitable (to them), defense of 'law
and order', hatred of the lower classes and fear that anti-Jewish riots might develop
into general popular rebellion. Still, the fact remains that they did defend the Jews.
For this reason all the massacres of Jews during the classical period were part of a
peasant rebellion or other popular movements at times when the government was for
some reason especially weak. This is true even in the partly exceptional case of Tsarist
Russia. The Tsarist government, acting surreptitiously through its secret police, did
promote pogroms; but it did so only when it was particularly weak (after the
assassination of Alexander II in 1881, and in the period immediately before and after
the 1905 revolution) and even then took care to contain the break-down of 'law and
order'. During the time of its greatest strength - for example, under Nicholas I or in
the latter part of the reign of Alexander III, when the opposition had been smashed -
pogroms were not tolerated by the Tsarist regime, although legal discrimination
against Jews was intensified.

The general rule can be observed in all the major massacres of Jews in Christian
Europe. During the first crusade, it was not the proper armies of the knights,
commanded by famous dukes and counts, which molested the Jews, but the
spontaneous popular hosts composed almost exclusively of peasants and paupers in
the wake of Peter the Hermit. In each city the bishop or the emperor's representative
opposed them and tried, often in vain, to protect the Jews. (19) The anti-Jewish riots
in England which accompanied the third crusade were part of a popular movement
directed also against royal officials, and some rioters were punished by Richard I. The
massacres of Jews during the outbreaks of the Black Death occurred against the strict
orders of the pope, the emperor, the bishops and the German princes. In the free
towns, for example in Strasbourg, they were usually preceded by a local revolution in
which the oligarchic town council, which protected the Jews, was overthrown and
replaced by a more popular one. The great 1391 massacres of Jews in Spain took place
under a feeble regency government and at a time when the papacy, weakened by the
Great Schism between competing popes, was unable to control the mendicant friars.

Perhaps the most outstanding example is the great massacre of Jews during the
Chmielnicki revolt in the Ukraine

[66] (1648), which started as a mutiny of Cossack officers but soon turned into a
widespread popular movement of the oppressed serfs: 'The unprivileged, the
subjects, the Ukrainians, the Orthodox [persecuted by the Polish Catholic church]
were rising against their Catholic Polish masters, particularly against their masters'
bailiffs, clergy and Jews. (20) This typical peasant uprising against extreme
oppression, an uprising accompanied not only by massacres committed by the rebels
but also by even more horrible atrocities and 'counter-terror' of the Polish magnates'
private armies, (21) has remained emblazoned in the consciousness of east-European
Jews to this very day - not, however, as a peasant uprising, a revolt of the oppressed,
of the real wretched of the earth, nor even as a vengeance visited upon all the servants
of the Polish nobility, but as an act of gratuitous antisemitism directed against Jews
as such. In fact, the voting of the Ukrainian delegation at the UN and, more generally,
Soviet policies on the Middle East, are often 'explained' in the Israeli press as 'a

56

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

heritage of Chmielnicki' or of his 'descendants'.

Modem Antisemitism

The character of anti-Jewish persecutions underwent a radical change in
modern times. With the advent of the modern state, the abolition of serfdom and the
achievement of minimal individual rights, the special socio-economic function of the
Jews necessarily disappears. Along with it disappear also the powers of the Jewish
community over its members; individual Jews in growing numbers win the freedom
to enter the general society of their countries. Naturally, this transition aroused a
violent reaction both on the part of Jews (especially their rabbis) and of those
elements in European society who opposed the open society and for whom the whole
process of liberation of the individual was anathema.

Modern antisemitism appears first in France and Germany, then in Russia, after
about 1870. Contrary to the prevalent opinion among Jewish socialists, I do not
believe that its beginnings or its subsequent development until the present day can be
ascribed to 'capitalism'. On the contrary, in my opinion the successful capitalists in all
countries were on the whole remarkably free from antisemitism, and the countries in
which capitalism was established first and in its most extensive form - such as
England and Belgium - were also those where antisemitism was far less widespread
than elsewhere. (22)

Early modern antisemitism (1880-1900) was a reaction of bewildered men, who
deeply hated modern society in all its

[67] aspects, both good and bad, and who were ardent believers in the conspiracy
theory of history. The Jews were cast in the role of scapegoat for the breakup of the
old society (which anti-semitic nostalgia imagined as even more closed and ordered
than it had ever been in reality) and for all that was disturbing in modern times. But
right at the start the antisemites were faced with what was, for them, a difficult
problem: how to define this scapegoat, particularly in popular terms? What is to be
the supposed common denominator of the Jewish musician, banker, craftsman and
beggar - especially after the common religious features had largely dissolved, at least
externally? The 'theory' of the Jewish race was the modern antisemitic answer to this
problem.

In contrast, the old Christian, and even more so Muslim opposition to classical
Judaism was remarkably free from racism. No doubt this was to some extent a
consequence of the universal character of Christianity and Islam, as well as of their
original connection with Judaism (St Thomas More repeatedly rebuked a woman who
objected when he told her that the Virgin Mary was Jewish). But in my opinion a far
more important reason was the social role of the Jews as an integral part of the upper
classes. In many countries Jews were treated as potential nobles and, upon
conversion, were able immediately to intermarry with the highest nobility. The
nobility of 15th century Castile and Aragon or the aristocracy of 18th century Poland -
to take the two cases where intermarriage with converted Jews was widespread -
would hardly be likely to marry Spanish peasants or Polish serfs, no matter how
much praise the Gospel has for the poor.

57

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

It is the modern myth of the Jewish 'race' - of outwardly hidden but supposedly
dominant characteristics of 'the Jews', independent of history, of social role, of
anything - which is the formal and most important distinguishing mark of modern
antisemitism. This was in fact perceived by some Church leaders when modern
antisemitism first appeared as a movement of some strength. Some French Catholic
leaders, for example, opposed the new racist doctrine expounded by E. Drumont, the
first popular modern French antisemite and author of the notorious book La France
Juive (1886), which achieved wide circulation. (23) Early modern German
antisemites encountered similar opposition.

It must be pointed out that some important groups of European conservatives
were quite prepared to play along with modern antisemitism and use it for their own
ends, and the antisemites were equally ready to use the conservatives when the
occasion offered itself, although at bottom there was little

[68] similarity between the two parties. 'The victims who were most harshly treated
[by the pen of the above-mentioned Drumont] were not the Rothschilds but the great
nobles who courted them. Drumont did not spare the Royal Family ... or the bishops,
or for that matter the Pope. (24) Nevertheless, many of the French great nobles,
bishops and conservatives generally were quite happy to use Drumont and
antisemitism during the crisis of the Dreyfus affair in an attempt to bring down the
republican regime.

This type of opportunistic alliance reappeared many times in various European
countries until the defeat of Nazism. The conservatives' hatred of radicalism and
especially of all forms of socialism blinded many of them to the nature of their
political bedfellows. In many cases they were literally prepared to ally themselves
with the devil, forgetting the old saying that one needs a very long spoon to sup with
him.

The effectiveness of modern antisemitism, and of its alliance with conservatism,
depended on several factors.

First, the older tradition of Christian religious opposition to Jews, which existed
in many (though by no means all) European countries, could, if supported or at least
unopposed by the clergy, be harnessed to the antisemitic bandwagon. The actual
response of the clergy in each country was largely determined by specific local
historical and social circumstances. In the Catholic Church, the tendency for an
opportunistic alliance with antisemitism was strong in France but not in Italy; in
Poland and Slovakia but not in Bohemia. The Greek Orthodox Church had notorious
antisemitic tendencies in Romania but took the opposite line in Bulgaria. Among the
Protestant Churches, the German was deeply divided on this issue, others (such as
the Latvian and Estonian) tended to be antisemitic, but many (for example the Dutch,
Swiss and Scandinavian) were among the earliest to condemn antisemitism.

Secondly, antisemitism was largely a generic expression of xenophobia, a desire
for a 'pure' homogeneous society. But in many European countries around 1900 (and
in fact until quite recently) the Jew was virtually the only 'stranger'. This was
particularly true of Germany. In principle, the German racists of the early 20th
century hated and despised Blacks just as much as Jews; but there were no Blacks in

58

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Germany then. Hate is of course much more easily focused on the present than on the
absent, especially under the conditions of the time, when mass travel and tourism did
not exist and most Europeans never left their own country in peacetime.

Thirdly, the successes of the tentative alliance between conservatism and
antisemitism were inversely proportional to the

[69] power and capabilities of its opponents. And the consistent and effective
opponents of antisemitism in Europe are the political forces of liberalism and
socialism - historically the same forces that continue in various ways the tradition
symbolized by the War of Dutch Independence (1568-1648), the English Revolution
and the Great French Revolution. On the European continent the main shibboleth is
the attitude towards the Great French Revolution - roughly speaking, those who are
for it are against antisemitism; those who accept it with regret would be at least prone
to an alliance with the antisemites; those who hate it and would like to undo its
achievements are the milieu from which antisemitism develops.

Nevertheless, a sharp distinction must be made between conservatives and even
reactionaries on the one hand and actual racists and antisemites on the other.
Modern racism (of which antisemitism is part) although caused by specific social
conditions, becomes, when it gains strength, a force that in my opinion can only be
described as demonic. After coming to power, and for its duration, I believe it defies
analysis by any presently understood social theory or set of merely social
observations - and in particular by any known theory invoking interests, be they class
or state interests, or other than purely psychological 'interests' of any entity that can
be defined in the present state of human knowledge. But this I do not mean that such
forces are unknowable in principle; on the contrary, one must hope that with the
growth of human knowledge they will come to be understood. But at present they are
neither understood nor capable of being rationally predicted - and this applies to all
racism in all societies. (25) As a matter of fact, no political figure or group of any
political color in any country had predicted even vaguely the horrors of Nazism. Only
artists and poets such as Heine were able to glimpse some of what the future had in
store. We do not know how they did it; and besides, many of their other hunches were
wrong.

The Zionist Response

Historically, zionism is both a reaction to antisemitism and a conservative
alliance with it - although the Zionists, like other European conservatives, did not
fully realize with whom they were allying themselves.

Until the rise of modern antisemitism, the mood of European Jewry was
optimistic, indeed excessively so. This was manifested not only in the very large
number of Jews, particularly in western countries, who simply opted out of classical
Judaism, apparently without any great regret, in the first or

[70] second generation after this became possible, but also in the formation of a
strong cultural movement, the Jewish Enlightenment ( Haskalah ), which began in
Germany and Austria around 1780, was then carried into eastern Europe and by
1850-70 was making itself felt as a considerable social force. I cannot enter here into

59

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

a discussion of the movement's cultural achievements, such as the revival of Hebrew
literature and the creation of a wonderful literature in Yiddish. However, it is
important to note that despite many internal differences, the movement as a whole
was characterized by two common beliefs: a belief in the need for a fundamental
critique of Jewish society and particularly of the social role of the Jewish religion in
its classical form, and the almost messianic hope for the victory of the 'forces of good'
in European societies. The latter forces were naturally defined by the sole criterion of
their support for Jewish emancipation.

The growth of antisemitism as a popular movement, and the many alliances of
the conservative forces with it, dealt a severe blow to the Jewish Enlightenment. The
blow was especially devastating because in actual fact the rise of antisemitism
occurred just after the Jews were emancipated in some European countries, and even
before they were freed in others. The Jews of the Austrian empire received fully equal
rights only in 1867. In Germany, some independent states emancipated their Jews
quite early, but others did not; notably, Prussia was grudging and tardy in this
matter, and final emancipation of the Jews in the German empire as a whole was only
granted by Bismarck in 1871. In the Ottoman empire the Jews were subject to official
discrimination until 1909, and in Russia (as well as Romania) until 1917. Thus
modern antisemitism began within a decade of the emancipation of the Jews in
central Europe and long before the emancipation of the biggest Jewish community at
that time, that of the Tsarist empire.

It is therefore easy for the Zionists to ignore half of the relevant facts, revert to
the segregationist stance of classical Judaism, and claim that since all Gentiles always
hate and persecute all Jews, the only solution would be to remove all the Jews bodily
and concentrate them in Palestine or Uganda or wherever. (26) Some early Jewish
critics of zionism were quick to point out that if one assumes a permanent and
ahistorical incompatibility between Jews and Gentiles an assumption shared by both
Zionists and antisemites! - then to concentrate the Jews in one place would simply
bring upon them the hatred of the Gentiles in that part of the world (as indeed was to
happen, though for very different reasons). But as far as I know this logical argument
did not make any

[71] impression, just as all the logical and factual arguments against the myth of the
'Jewish race' made not the slightest difference to the antisemites.

In fact, close relations have always existed between Zionists and antisemites:
exactly like some of the European conservatives, the Zionists thought they could
ignore the 'demonic' character of antisemitism and use the antisemites for their own
purposes. Many examples of such alliances are well known. Herzl allied himself with
the notorious Count von Plehve, the antisemitic minister of Tsar Nicholas II; (27)
Jabotinsky made a pact with Petlyura, the reactionary Ukrainian leader whose forces
massacred some 100,000 Jews in 1918-21; Ben-Gurion's allies among the French
extreme right during the Algerian war included some notorious antisemites who
were, however, careful to explain that they were only against the Jews in France, not
in Israel.

Perhaps the most shocking example of this type is the delight with which some
Zionist leaders in Germany welcomed Hitler's rise to power, because they shared his

60

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

belief in the primacy of 'race' and his hostility to the assimilation of Jews among
'Aryans'. They congratulated Hitler on his triumph over the common enemy - the
forces of liberalism. Dr Joachim Prinz, a Zionist rabbi who subsequently emigrated to
the USA, where he rose to be vice-chairman of the World Jewish Congress and a
leading light in the World Zionist Organization (as well as a great friend of Golda
Meir), published in 1934 a special book, Wir Juden (We, Jews), to celebrate Hitler's
so- called German Revolution and the defeat of liberalism:

The meaning of the German Revolution for the German nation will eventually
be clear to those who have created it and formed its image. Its meaning for us must
be set forth here: the fortunes of liberalism are lost. The only form of political life
which has helped Jewish assimilation is sunk. (28)

The victory of Nazism rules out assimilation and mixed marriages as an option
for Jews. 'We are not unhappy about this,' said Dr Prinz. In the fact that Jews are
being forced to identify themselves as Jews, he sees 'the fulfillment of our desires'.
And further:

We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of
belonging to the Jewish nation and Jewish race. A state built upon the
principle of the purity of nation and race can only honored and respected by a Jew
who declares his belonging to his own kind. Having so declared himself, he will
never be capable of faulty loyalty towards a state. The state cannot want other Jews
but such as declare themselves as belonging to their nation. It will not want Jewish
flatterers and

crawlers. It must demand of us faith and loyalty to our own interest. For only he
who honors his own breed and his own blood can have an attitude of honor towards

the national will of other nations. (29)

The whole book is full of similar crude flatteries of Nazi ideology, glee at the
defeat of liberalism and particularly of the ideas of the French Revolution (30) a and
great expectations that, in the congenial atmosphere of the myth of the Aryan race,
Zionism and the myth of the Jewish race will also thrive.

Of course, Dr Prinz, like many other early sympathizers and allies of Nazism,
did not realize where that movement (and modern antisemitism generally) was
leading. Equally, many people at present do not realize where zionism - the
movement in which Dr Prinz was an honored figure - is tending: to a combination of
all the old hates of classical Judaism towards Gentiles and to the indiscriminate and
ahistorical use of all the persecutions of Jews throughout history in order to justify
the zionist persecution of the Palestinians.

For, insane as it sounds, it is nevertheless plain upon close examination of the
real motives of the Zionists, that one of the most deep-seated ideological sources of
the Zionist establishment's persistent hostility towards the Palestinians is the fact
that they are identified in the minds of many east-European Jews with the rebellious
east-European peasants who participated in the Chmielnicki uprising and in similar
revolts - and the latter are in turn identified ahistorically with modern antisemitism

61

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

and Nazism.

Confronting the Past

All Jews who really want to extricate themselves from the tyranny of the
totalitarian Jewish past must face the question of their attitude towards the popular
anti-Jewish manifestations of the past, particularly those connected with the
rebellions of enserfed peasants. On the other side, all the apologists of the Jewish
religion and of Jewish segregationism and chauvinism also take their stand - both
ultimately and in current debates - on the same question. The undoubted fact that the
peasant revolutionaries committed shocking atrocities against Jews (as well as
against their other oppressors) is used as an 'argument' by those apologists, in exactly
the same way that the Palestinian terror is used to justify the denial of justice to the
Palestinians.

Our own answer must be a universal one, applicable in principle to all
comparable cases. And, for a Jew who truly seeks liberation from Jewish
particularism and racism and from

[73] the dead hand of the Jewish religion, such an answer is not very difficult.

After all, revolts of oppressed peasants against their masters and their masters'
bailiffs are common in human history. A generation after the Chmielnicki uprising of
the Ukrainian peasants, the Russian peasants rose under the leadership of Stenka
Ryazin, and again, one hundred years later, in the Pugachev rebellion. In Germany
there was the Peasant War of 1525, in France the Jacquerie of 1357-8 and many other
popular revolts, not to mention the many slave uprisings in all parts of the world. All
of them - and I have intentionally chosen to mention examples in which Jews were
not targets - were attended by horrifying massacres, just as the Great French
Revolution was accompanied by appalling acts of terror. What is the position of true
progressives - and, by now, of most ordinary decent educated people be they Russian,
German or French - on these rebellions? Do decent English historians, even when
noting the massacres of Englishmen by rebellious Irish peasants rising against their
enslavement, condemn the latter as 'anti-English racists'? What is the attitude of
progressive French historians towards the great slave revolution in Santo Domingo,
where many French women and children were butchered? To ask the question is to
answer it. But to ask a similar question of many 'progressive' or even socialist' Jewish
circles is to receive a very different answer; here an enslaved peasant is transformed
into a racist monster, if Jews profited from his state of slavery and exploitation.

The maxim that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it
applies to those Jews who refuse to come to terms with the Jewish past: they have
become its slaves and are repeating it in Zionist and Israeli policies. The State of
Israel now fulfills towards the oppressed peasants of many countries - not only in the
Middle East but also far beyond it - a role not unlike that of the Jews in pre-1795
Poland: that of a bailiff to the imperial oppressor. It is characteristic and instructive
that Israel's major role in arming the forces of the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, and
those of Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile and the rest has not given rise to any wide
public debate in Israel or among organized Jewish communities in the diaspora. Even
the narrower question of expediency - whether the selling of weapons to a dictatorial

62

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

butcher of freedom fighters and peasants is in the long term interest of Jews - is
seldom asked. Even more significant is the large part taken in this business by
religious Jews, and the total silence of their rabbis (who are very vocal in inciting
hatred against Arabs). It seems that Israel and Zionism are a throw-back to

[74] the role of classical Judaism - writ large, on a global scale, and under more
dangerous circumstances.

The only possible answer to all this, first of all by Jews, must be that given by all
true advocates of freedom and humanity in all countries, all peoples and all great
philosophies- limited though they sometimes are, as the human condition itself is
limited. We must confront the Jewish past and those aspects of the present which are
based simultaneously on lying about that past and worshiping it. The prerequisites
for this are, first, total honesty about the facts and, secondly, the belief (leading to
action, whenever possible) in universalist human principles of ethics and politics.

The ancient Chinese sage Mencius (4th century BC), much admired by Voltaire,
once wrote:

This is why I say that all men have a sense of commiseration: here is a man
who suddenly notices a child about to fall into a well. Invariably he will feel a sense
of alarm and compassion. And this is not for the purpose of gaining the favor of the
child's parents or of seeking the approbation of his neighbors and friends, or for fear
of blame should he fail to rescue it. Thus we see that no man is without a sense of
compassion or a sense of shame or a sense of courtesy or a sense of right and wrong.
The sense of compassion is the beginning of humanity, the sense of shame is the
beginning of righteousness, and sense of courtesy is the beginning of decorum, the
sense of right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom. Every man has within himself
these four beginnings, just as he has four limbs. Since everyone has these four
beginnings within him, the man who considers himself incapable of exercising them
is destroying himself.

We have seen above, and will show in greater detail in the next chapter how far
removed from this are the precepts with which the Jewish religion in its classical and
talmudic form is poisoning minds and hearts.

The road to a genuine revolution in Judaism - to making it humane, allowing
Jews to understand their own past, thereby re-educating themselves out of its
tyranny - lies through an unrelenting critique of the Jewish religion. Without fear or
favor, we must speak out against what belongs to our own past as Voltaire did against
his:

Ecrasez I'infame!

63

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

[75]

Chapter 5

The Laws Against Non-Jews

As explained in Chapter 3, the Halakhah, that is the legal system of classical
Judaism - as practiced by virtually all Jews from the 9th century to the end of the 18 th
and as maintained to this very day in the form of Orthodox Judaism - is based
primarily on the Babylonian Talmud. However, because of the unwieldy complexity
of the legal disputations recorded in the Talmud, more manageable codifications of
talmudic law became necessary and were indeed compiled by successive generations
of rabbinical scholars. Some of these have acquired great authority and are in general
use. For this reasons we shall refer for the most part to such compilations (and their
most reputable commentaries) rather than directly to the Talmud. It is however
correct to assume that the compilation referred to reproduces faithfully the meaning
of the talmudic text and the additions made by later scholars on the basis of that
meaning.

The earliest code of talmudic law which is still of major importance is the
Mishneh Torah written by Moses Maimonides in the late 12th century. The most
authoritative code, widely used to date as a handbook, is the Shulhan 'Arukh
composed by R. Yosef Karo in the late 16th century as a popular condensation of his
own much more voluminous Beys Yosef which was intended for the advanced
scholar. The Shulhan 'Arukh is much commented upon; in addition to classical
commentaries dating from the 17th century, there is an important 20th century one,
Mishnah Berurah. Finally, the Talmudic Encyclopedia - a modern compilation
published in Israel from the 1950s and edited by the country's greatest Orthodox
rabbinical scholars - is a good compendium of the whole talmudic literature.

Murder and Genocide

According to the Jewish religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and
one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish
religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the
limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. A
Jew who indirectly causes the death of another Jew is, however, only guilty of what
talmudic law calls a sin against the 'laws of Heaven', to be punished by God rather
than by man.

[76]

64

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders
a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court,
(l) To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all. (2)

Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan Arukh
explains that when it comes to a Gentile, 'one must not lift one's hand to harm him,
but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had
fallen into a crevice ... there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly’
(3) He points out, however, that an act leading indirectly to a Gentile's death is
forbidden if it may cause the spread of hostility towards Jews. (4)

A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be
executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile
and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished. (5)

All this has a direct and practical relevance to the realities of the State of Israel.
Although the state's criminal laws make no distinction between Jew and Gentile, such
distinction is certainly made by Orthodox rabbis, who in guiding their flock follow the
Halakhah. Of special importance is the advice they give to religious soldiers.

Since even the minimal interdiction against murdering a Gentile outright
applies only to 'Gentiles with whom we [the Jews] are not at war', various rabbinical
commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion that in wartime all Gentiles
belonging to a hostile population may, or even should be killed. (6) Since 1973 this
doctrine is being publicly propagated for the guidance of religious Israeli soldiers.
The first such official exhortation was included in a booklet published by the Central
Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank. In this
booklet the Command's Chief Chaplain writes:

When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a
raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our
forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed... Under
no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of
being civilized ... In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and
even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are
ostensibly good. (7)

The same doctrine is expounded in the following exchange of letters between a
young Israeli soldier and his rabbi, published in the yearbook of one of the country's
most prestigious religious

[77] colleges, Midrashiyyat No'am, where many leaders and activists of the National
Religious Party and Gush Emunim have been educated. (8)

Letter from the soldier Moshe to Rabbi Shim 'on Weiser '

With God's help, to His Honor, my dear Rabbi,

'First I would like to ask how you and your family are. I hope all is well. I
am, thank God, feeling well. A long time I have not written. Please forgive me.

65

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Sometimes I recall the verse "when shall I come and appear before God?' (9) I
hope, without being certain, that I shall come during one of the leaves. I must
do so.

'In one of the discussions in our group, there was a debate about the
"purity of weapons" and we discussed whether it is permitted to kill unarmed
men - or women and children? Or perhaps we should take revenge on the
Arabs? And then everyone answered according to his own understanding. I
could not arrive at a clear decision, whether Arabs should be treated like the
Amelekites, meaning that one is permitted to murder [sic] them until their
remembrance is blotted out from under heaven, (10) or perhaps one should do
as in a just war, in which one kills only the soldiers?

'A second problem I have is whether I am permitted to put myself in
danger by allowing a woman to stay alive? For there have been cases when
women threw hand grenades. Or am I permitted to give water to an Arab who
put his hand up? For there may be reason to fear that he only means to deceive
me and will kill me, and such things have happened.

'I conclude with a warm greeting to the rabbi and all his family. - Moshe.'

Reply of. Shun 'on Weiser to Moshe

'With the help of Heaven. Dear Moshe, Greetings.

'I am starting this letter this evening although I know I cannot finish it
this evening, both because I am busy and because I would like to make it a
long letter, to answer your questions in full, for which purpose I shall have to
copy out some of the sayings of our sages, of blessed memory, and interpret
them. (11)

'The non-Jewish nations have a custom according to which war has its
own rules, like those of a game, like the rules of football or basketball. But
according to the sayings of our sages, of blessed memory, [...] war for us is
not a game but a vital necessity, and only by this standard must we decide
how to wage

it. On the one hand [...] we seem to learn that if a Jew murders a Gentile, he
is regarded as a murderer and, except for the fact that no court has the right
to punish him, the gravity of the deed is like that of any other murder. But we
find in the very same authorities in another place [...] that Rabbi Shim'on
used to say: "The best of Gentiles - kill him; the best of snakes dash out its
brains."

'It might perhaps be argued that the expression "kill" in the saying of R.
Shim'on is only figurative and should not be taken literally but as meaning
"oppress" or some similar attitude, and in this way we also avoid a
contradiction with the authorities quoted earlier. Or one might argue that
this saying, though meant literally, is [merely] his own personal opinion,
disputed by other sages [quoted earlier]. But we find the true explanation in
the Tosalot. (12) There [...] we learn the following comment on the talmudic
pronouncement that Gentiles who fall into a well should not be helped out,
but neither should they be pushed into the well to be killed, which means that
they should neither be saved from death nor killed directly. And the Tosafot
write as follows:

"And if it is queried [because] in another place it was said The best of
Gentiles - kill him, then the answer is that this [saying] is meant for

66

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

wartime." [...]

'According to the commentators of the Tosafot, a distinction must be
made between wartime and peace, so that although during peace time it is
forbidden to kill Gentiles, in a case that occurs in wartime it is a mitzvah
[imperative, religious duty] to kill them.[...]

'And this is the difference between a Jew and a Gentile: although the
rule "Whoever comes to kill you, kill him first" applies to a Jew, as was said in
Tractate Sanhedrin [of the Talmud ], page 72a, still it only applies to him if
there is [actual] ground to fear that he is coming to kill you. But a Gentile
during wartime is usually to be presumed so, except when it is quite clear that
he has no evil intent. This is the rule of "purity of weapons" according to the
Halakhah - and not the alien conception which is now accepted in the Israeli
army and which has been the cause of many [Jewish] casualties. I enclose a
newspaper cutting with the speech made last week in the Knesset by Rabbi
Kalman Kahana, which shows in a very lifelike - and also painful - way how
this "purity of weapons" has caused deaths.

'I conclude here, hoping that you will not find the length of this letter
irksome. This subject was being discussed even without your letter, but your
letter caused me to write up the whole matter.

79 ]

'Be in peace, you and all Jews, and [I hope to] see you soon, as you say.
Yours - Shim'on.

Reply of Moshe to R. Shim'on Weiser

'To His Honor, my dear Rabbi,

'First I hope that you and your family are in health and are all right.

'I have received your long letter and am grateful for your personal watch
over me, for I assume that you write to many, and most of your time is taken
up with your studies in your own program.

'Therefore my thanks to you are doubly deep.

'As for the letter itself, I have understood it as follows:

'In wartime I am not merely permitted, but enjoined to kill every Arab
man and woman whom I chance upon, if there is reason to fear that they help
in the war against us, directly or indirectly. And as far as I am concerned I
have to kill them even if that might result in an involvement with the military
law. I think that this matter of the purity of weapons should be transmitted to
educational institutions, at least the religious ones, so that they should have a
position about this subject and so that they will not wander in the broad
fields of "logic", especially on this subject; and the rule has to be explained as
it should be followed in practice. For, I am sorry to say, I have seen different
types of "logic" here even among the religious comrades. I do hope that you
shall be active in this, so that our boys will know the line of their ancestors
clearly and unambiguously.

'I conclude here, hoping that when the [training] course ends, in about a
month, I shall be able to come to the yeshivah [talmudic college]. Greetings -
Moshe.'

Of course, this doctrine of the Halakhah on murder clashes, in principle, not
only with Israel's criminal law but also - as hinted in the letters just quoted - with
official military standing regulations. However, there can be little doubt that in

67

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

practice this doctrine does exert an influence on the administration of justice,
especially by military authorities. The fact is that in all cases where Jews have, in a
military or paramilitary context, murdered Arab non-combatants - including cases of
mass murder such as that in Kafr Qasim in 1956 - the murderers, if not let off
altogether, received extremely light sentences or won far-reaching remissions,
reducing their punishment to next to nothing. (13)

[80]

Saving of Life

This subject - the supreme value of human life and the obligation of every
human being to do the outmost to save the life of a fellow human - is of obvious
importance in itself. It is also of particular interest in a Jewish context, in view of the
fact that since the second world war Jewish opinion has - in some cases justly, in
others unjustly - condemned 'the whole world' or at least all Europe for standing by
when Jews were being massacred. Let us therefore examine what the Halakhah has
to say on this subject.

According to the Halakhah, the duty to save the life of a fellow Jew is
paramount. (14) It supersedes all other religious obligations and interdictions,
excepting only the prohibitions against the three most heinous sins of adultery
(including incest), murder and idolatry.

As for Gentiles, the basic talmudic principle is that their lives must not be saved,
although it is also forbidden to murder them outright. The Talmud itself (15)
expresses this in the maxim 'Gentiles are neither to be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled
down [into it]'. Maimonides (16) explains:

"As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war ... their death must not be
caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for
example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued,
for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow' (17) -
but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow."

In particular, a Jewish doctor must not treat a Gentile patient. Maimonides -
himself an illustrious physician - is quite explicit on this; in another passage (18) he
repeats the distinction between 'thy fellow' and a Gentile, and concludes: 'and from
this learn ye, that it is forbidden to heal a Gentile even for payment...'

However, the refusal of a Jew - particularly a Jewish doctor - to save the life of a
Gentile may, if it becomes known, antagonize powerful Gentiles and so put Jews in
danger. Where such danger exists, the obligation to avert it supersedes the ban on
helping the Gentile. Thus Maimonides continues: ' ... but if you fear him or his
hostility, cure him for payment, though you are forbidden to do so without payment.'
In fact, Maimonides himself was Saladin's personal physician. His insistence on
demanding payment - presumably in order to make sure that the act is not one of
human charity but an unavoidable duty - is however not absolute. For in another
passage he allows Gentile whose hostility is feared to be treated 'even gratis, if it is
unavoidable'.

68

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

[81]

The whole doctrine - the ban on saving a Gentile's life or healing him, and the
suspension of this ban in cases where there is fear of hostility - is repeated (virtually
verbatim) by other major authorities, including the 14th century Arba 'ah Turim and
Karo's Beyt Yosef and Shulhan 'Arukh. (19) Beyt Yosef adds, quoting Maimonides:
'And it is permissible to try out a drug on a heathen, if this serves a purpose'; and this
is repeated also by the famous R. Moses Isserles.

The consensus of halakhic authorities is that the term 'Gentiles' in the above
doctrine refers to all non-Jews. A lone voice of dissent is that of R. Moses Rivkes,
author of a minor commentary on the Shulhan Arukh, who writes. (20)

Our sages only said this about heathens, who in their day worshipped idols
and did not believe in the Jewish Exodus from Egypt or in the creation of the world
ex nihilo. But the Gentiles in whose [protective] shade we, the people of Israel, are
exiled and among whom we are scattered do believe in the creation of the world ex
nihilo and in the Exodus and in several principles of our own religion and they pray
to the Creator of heaven and earth ... Not only is there no interdiction against
helping them, but we are even obliged to pray for their safety.

This passage, dating from the second half of the 17th century, is a favorite quote
of apologetic scholars. (21) Actually, it does not go nearly as far as the apologetics
pretend, for it advocates removing the ban on saving a Gentile's life, rather than
making it mandatory as in the case of a Jew; and even this liberality extends only to
Christians and Muslims but not the majority of human beings. Rather, what it does
show is that there was a way in which the harsh doctrine of the Halakhah could
have been progressively liberalized. But as a matter of fact the majority of later
halakhic authorities, far from extending Rivkes' leniency to other human groups,
have rejected it altogether.

Desecrating the Sabbath to Save Life

Desecrating the Shabbath - that is, doing work that would otherwise be banned
on Saturday - becomes a duty when the need to save a Jew's life demands it.

The problem of saving a Gentile's life on the sabbath is not raised in the Talmud
as a main issue, since it is in any case forbidden even on a weekday; it does however
enter as a complicating factor in two connections.

First, there is a problem where a group of people are in danger, and it is possible
(but not certain) that there is at least one Jew among them: should the sabbath be
desecrated in

[82] order to save them? There is an extensive discussion of such cases. Following
earlier authorities, including Maimonides and the Talmud itself, the Shulhan Arukh
(22) decides these matters according to the weight of probabilities. For example,
suppose nine Gentiles and one Jew live in the same building. One Saturday the
building collapses; one of the ten - it is not known which one - is away, but the other
nine are trapped under the rubble. Should the rubble be cleared, thus desecrating the

69

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

sabbath, seeing that the Jew may not be under it (he may have been the one that got
away)? The Shulhan 'Arukh says that it should, presumably because the odds that the
Jew is under the rubble are high (nine to one). But now suppose that nine have got
away and only one - again, it is not known which one - is trapped. Then there is no
duty to clear the rubble, presumably because this time there are long odds (nine to
one) against the Jew being the person trapped. Similarly: 'If a boat containing some
Jews is seen to be in peril upon the sea, it is a duty incumbent upon all to desecrate
the sabbath in order to save it.' However, the great R. 'Aqiva Eiger (died 1837)
comments that this applies only 'when it is known that there are Jews on board. But
... if nothing at all is known about the identity of those on board, [the sabbath] must
not be desecrated, for one acts according to [the weight of probabilities, and] the
majority of people in the world are Gentiles.’ (23) Thus, since there are very long odds
against any of the passengers being Jewish, they must be allowed to drown.

Secondly, the provision that a Gentile may be saved or cared for in order to
avert the danger of hostility is curtailed on the sabbath. A Jew called upon to help a
Gentile on a weekday may have to comply because to admit that he is not allowed, in
principle, to save the life of a non-Jew would be to invite hostility. But on Saturday
the Jew can use sabbath observance as a plausible excuse. A paradigmatic case
discussed at length in the Talmud (24) is that of a Jewish midwife invited to help a
Gentile woman in childbirth. The upshot is that the midwife is allowed to help on a
weekday 'for fear of hostility', but on the sabbath she must not do so, because she can
excuse herself by saying: 'We are allowed to desecrate the sabbath only for our own,
who observe the sabbath, but for your people, who do not keep the sabbath, we are
not allowed to desecrate it.' Is this explanation a genuine one or merely an excuse?
Maimonides clearly thinks that it is just an excuse, which can be used even if the task
that the midwife is invited to do does not actually involve any desecration of the
sabbath. Presumably, the excuse will work just as well even in this case, because
Gentiles are generally in the dark as to precisely which

[83] kinds of work are banned for Jews on the sabbath. At any rate, he decrees: 'A
Gentile woman must not be helped in childbirth on the sabbath, even for payment;
nor must one fear hostility, even when [such help involves] no desecration of the
sabbath.' The Shulhan Arukh decrees likewise. (25)

Nevertheless, this sort of excuse could not always be relied upon to do the trick
and avert Gentile hostility. Therefore certain important rabbinical authorities had to
relax the rules to some extent and allowed Jewish doctors to treat Gentiles on the
sabbath even if this involved doing certain types of work normally banned on that
day. This partial relaxation applied particularly to rich and powerful Gentile patients,
who could not be fobbed off so easily and whose hostility could be dangerous.

Thus, R. Yo'el Sirkis, author of Bayit Hadash and one of the greatest rabbis of
his time (Poland, 17th century), decided that 'mayors, petty nobles and aristocrats'
should be treated on the sabbath, because of the fear of their hostility which involves
'some danger'. But in other cases, especially when the Gentile can be fobbed off with
an evasive excuse, a Jewish doctor would commit 'an unbearable sin' by treating him
on the sabbath. Later in the same century, a similar verdict was given in the French
city of Metz, whose two parts were connected by a pontoon bridge. Jews are not
normally allowed to cross such a bridge on the sabbath, but the rabbi of Metz decided

70

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

that a Jewish doctor may nevertheless do so 'if he is called to the great governor':
since the doctor is known to cross the bridge for the sake of his Jewish patients, the
governor's hostility could be aroused if the doctor refused to do so for his sake. Under
the authoritarian rule of Louis XIV, it was evidently important to have the goodwill of
his intendant; the feelings of lesser Gentiles were of little importance. (26)

Hokhmat Shlomoh, a 19th century commentary on the Shulhan 'Arukh,
mentions a similarly strict interpretation of the concept 'hostility' in connection with
the Karaites, a small heretical Jewish sect. According to this view, their lives must not
be saved if that would involve desecration of the sabbath, 'for "hostility" applies only
to the heathen, who are many against us, and we are delivered into their hands .. But
the Karaites are few and we are not delivered into their hands, [so] the fear of
hostility does not apply to them at all.' (27) In fact, the absolute ban on desecrating
the sabbath in order to save the life of a Karaite is still in force today, as we shall see.

The whole subject is extensively discussed in the responsa of R. Moshe Sofer -
better known as 'Hatam Sofer' - the

[84] famous rabbi of Pressburg (Bratislava) who died in 1832. His conclusions are of
more than historical interest, since in 1966 one of his responsa was publicly endorsed
by the then Chief Rabbi of Israel as 'a basic institution of the Halakhah'. (28) The
particular question asked of Hatam Sofer concerned the situation in Turkey, where it
was decreed during one of the wars that in each township or village there should be
midwives on call, ready to hire themselves out to any woman in labor. Some of these
midwives were Jewish; should they hire themselves out to help Gentile women on
weekdays and on the sabbath?

In his responsum, (29) Hatam Sofer first concludes, after careful investigation,
that the Gentiles concerned - that is, Ottoman Christians and Muslims - are not only
idolators 'who definitely worship other gods and thus should "neither be lifted [out of
a well] nor hauled down",' but are likened by him to the Amalekites, so that the
talmudic ruling 'it is forbidden to multiply the seed of Amalek' applies to them. In
principle, therefore, they should not be helped even on weekdays. However, in
practice it is 'permitted' to heal Gentiles and help them in labor, if they have doctors
and midwives of their own, who could be called instead of the Jewish ones. For if
Jewish doctors and midwives refused to attend to Gentiles, the only result would be
loss of income to the former - which is of course undesirable. This applies equally on
weekdays and on the sabbath, provided no desecration of the sabbath is involved.
However, in the latter case the sabbath can serve as an excuse to 'mislead the heathen
woman and say that it would involve desecration of the sabbath'.

In connection with cases that do actually involve desecration of the sabbath,
Hatam Sofer - like other authorities - makes a distinction between two categories of
work banned on the sabbath. First, there is work banned by the Torah, the biblical
text (as interpreted by the Talmud); such work may only be performed in very
exceptional cases, if failing to do so would cause an extreme danger of hostility
towards Jews. Then there are types of work which are only banned by the sages who
extended the original law of the Torah; the attitude towards breaking such bans is
generally more lenient.

71

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Another responsum of Hatam Sofer (30) deals with the question whether it is
permissible for a Jewish doctor to travel by carriage on the sabbath in order to heal a
Gentile. After pointing out that under certain conditions traveling by horsedrawn
carriage on the sabbath only violates a ban imposed 'by the sages' rather than by the
Torah, he goes on to recall

[85] Maimonides' pronouncement that Gentile women in labor must not be helped
on the sabbath, even if no desecration of the sabbath is involved, and states that the
same principle applies to all medical practice, not just midwifery. But he then voices
the fear that if this were put into practice, 'it would arouse undesirable hostility,' for
'the Gentiles would not accept the excuse of sabbath observance,' and 'would say that
the blood of an idolator has little worth in our eyes'. Also, perhaps more importantly,
Gentile doctors might take revenge on their Jewish patients. Better excuses must be
found. He advises a Jewish doctor who is called to treat a Gentile patient out of town
on the sabbath to excuse himself by saying that he is required to stay in town in order
to look after his other patients, 'for he can use this in order to say, "I cannot move
because of the danger to this or that patient, who needs a doctor first, and I may not
desert my charge" ... With such an excuse there is no fear of danger, for it is a
reasonable pretext, commonly given by doctors who are late in arriving because
another patient needed them first.' Only 'if it is impossible to give any excuse' is the
doctor permitted to travel by carriage on the sabbath in order to treat a Gentile.

In the whole discussion, the main issue is the excuses that should be made, not
the actual healing or the welfare of the patient. And throughout it is taken for granted
that it is all right to deceive Gentiles rather than treat them, so long as 'hostility' can
be averted. (31)

Of course, in modern times most Jewish doctors are not religious and do not
even know of these rules. Moreover, it appears that even many who are religious
prefer to their credit - to abide by the Hippocratic oath rather than by the precepts of
their fanatic rabbis. (32) However, the rabbis' guidance cannot fail to have some
influence on some doctors; and there are certainly many who, while not actually
following that guidance, choose not to protest against it publicly.

All this is far from being a dead issue. The most up- to-date halakhic position on
these matters is contained in a recent concise and authoritative book published in
English under the title Jewish Medical Law. (33) This book, which bears the imprint
of the prestigious Israeli foundation Mossad Harav Kook, is based on the responsa of
R. Eli'ezer Yehuda Waldenberg, Chief Justice of the Rabbinical District Court of
Jerusalem. A few passages of this work deserve special mention.

First, 'it is forbidden to desecrate the sabbath ... for a Karaite.' (34) This is stated
bluntly, absolutely and without any further qualification. Presumably the hostility of
this small sect makes no difference, so they should be allowed to die rather

[86] than be treated on the sabbath.

As for Gentiles: 'According to the ruling stated in the Talmud and Codes of
Jewish Law, it is forbidden to desecrate the Sabbath - whether violating Biblical or
rabbinic law - in order to save the life of a dangerously ill gentile patient. It is also

72

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

forbidden to deliver the baby of a gentile women on the Sabbath.' (35)

But this is qualified by a dispensation: 'However, today it is permitted to
desecrate the Sabbath on behalf of a Gentile by performing actions prohibited by
rabbinic law, for by so doing one prevents ill feelings from arising between Jew and
Gentile.' (36)

This does not go very far, because medical treatment very often involves acts
banned on the sabbath by the Torah itself, which are not covered by this
dispensation. There are, we are told, 'some' halakhic authorities who extend the
dispensation to such acts as well - but this is just another way of saying that most
halakhic authorities, and the ones that really count, take the opposite view. However,
all is not lost. Jewish Medical Law has a truly breathtaking solution to this difficulty.

The solution hangs upon a nice point of talmudic law. A ban imposed by the
Torah on performing a given act on the sabbath is presumed to apply only when the
primary intention in performing it is the actual outcome of the act. (For example,
grinding wheat is presumed to be banned by the Torah only if the purpose is actually
to obtain flour.) On the other hand, if the performance of the same act is merely
incidental to some other purpose (melakhah seh'eynah tzrikhah legufah ) then the act
changes its status - it is still forbidden, to be sure, but only by the sages rather than by
the Torah itself. Therefore:

In order to avoid any transgression of the law, there is a legally acceptable
method of rendering treatment on behalf of a gentile patient even when dealing with
violation of Biblical Law. It is suggested that at the time that the physician is
providing the necessary care, his intentions should not primarily be to cure the
patient, but to protect himself and the Jewish people from accusations of religious
discrimination and severe retaliation that may endanger him in particular and the
Jewish people in general. With this intention, any act on the physician's part
becomes an act whose actual outcome is not its primary purpose' ... which is
forbidden on Sabbath only by rabbinic law. (37)

This hypocritical substitute for the Hippocratic oath is also proposed by a recent
authoritative Hebrew book. (38)

Although the facts were mentioned at least twice in the
[87] Israeli press, (39) the Israeli Medical Association has remained silent.

Having treated in some detail the supremely important subject of the attitude of
the Halakhah to a Gentile's very life, we shall deal much more briefly with other
halakhic rules which discriminate against Gentiles. Since the number of such rules is
very large, we shall mention only the more important ones.

Sexual Offenses

Sexual Intercourse between a married Jewish woman and any man other than

73

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

her husband is a capital offense for both parties, and one of the three most heinous
sins. The status of Gentile women is very different. The Halakhah presumes all
Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse 'whose flesh is as the flesh of asses,
and whose issue [of semen] is like the issue of horses' (40) is applied to them.
Whether a Gentile woman is married or not makes no difference, since as far as Jews
are concerned the very concept of matrimony does not apply to Gentiles ('There is no
matrimony for a heathen'). Therefore, the concept of adultery also does not apply to
intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman; rather, the Talmud (41)
equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality. (For the same reason, Gentiles are
generally presumed not to have certain paternity.)

According to the Talmudic Encyclopedia: (42) 'He who has carnal knowledge of
the wife of a Gentile is not liable to the death penalty, for it is written: "thy fellow's
wife" (43) rather than the alien's wife; and even the precept that a man "shall cleave
unto his wife" (44) which is addressed to the Gentiles does not apply to a Jew, just
there is no matrimony for a heathen; and although a married Gentile woman is
forbidden to the Gentiles, in any case a Jew is exempted.'

This does not imply that sexual intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile
woman is permitted - quite the contrary. But the main punishment is inflicted on the
Gentile woman; she must be executed, even if she was raped by the Jew: 'If a Jew has
coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of three or an adult, whether
married or unmarried, and even if he is a minor aged only nine years and one day -
because he had willful coitus with her, she must be killed, as is the case with a beast,
because through her a Jew got into trouble' (45) The Jew, however, must be flogged,
and if he is a Kohen (member of the priestly tribe) he must receive double the
number of lashes, because he has committed a

[88] double offense: a Kohen must not have intercourse with a prostitute, and
all Gentile women are presumed to be prostitutes. (46)

Status

According to the Halakhah, Jews must not (if they can help it) allow a Gentile to
be appointed to any position of authority, however small, over Jews. (The two stock
examples are commander over ten soldiers in the Jewish army' and 'superintendent
of an irrigation ditch'.) Significantly, this particular rule applies also to converts to
Judaism and to their descendants (through the female line) for ten generations or 'so
long as the descent is known'.

Gentiles are presumed to be congenital liars, and are disqualified from testifying
in a rabbinical court. In this respect their position is, in theory, the same as that of
Jewish women, slaves and minors; but in practice it is actually worse. A Jewish
woman is nowadays admitted as a witness to certain matters of fact, when the
rabbinical court 'believes' her; a Gentile - never.

A problem therefore arises when a rabbinical court needs to establish a fact for
which there are only Gentile witnesses. An important example of this is in cases
concerning widows: by Jewish religious law, a woman can be declared a widow - and
hence free to re-marry - only if the death of her husband is proven with certainty by

74

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

means of a witness who saw him die or identified his corpse. However, the rabbinical
court will accept the hearsay evidence of a Jew who testifies to having heard the fact
in question mentioned by a Gentile eyewitness, provided the court is satisfied that the
latter was speaking casually (goy mesiah left tummo ) rather than in reply to a direct
question; for a Gentile's direct answer to a Jew's direct question is presumed to be a
he. (47) If necessary, a Jew (preferably a rabbi) will actually undertake to chat up the
Gentile eyewitness and, without asking a direct question, extract from him a casual
statement of the fact at issue.

Money and Property

(1) Gifts. The Talmud bluntly forbids giving a gift to a Gentile. However,
classical rabbinical authorities bent this rule because it is customary among
businessmen to give gifts to business contacts. It was therefore laid down that a Jew
may give a gift to a Gentile acquaintance, since this is regarded not as a true gift but
as a sort of investment, for which some return is expected. Gifts to 'unfamiliar
Gentiles' remain forbidden. A broadly similar rule

[89] applies to almsgiving. Giving alms to a Jewish beggar is an important religious
duty. Alms to Gentile beggars are merely permitted for the sake of peace. However
there are numerous rabbinical warnings against allowing the Gentile poor to become
'accustomed' to receiving alms from Jews, so that it should be possible to withhold
such alms without arousing undue hostility.

(2) Taking of interest. Anti-Gentile discrimination in this matter has become
largely theoretical, in view of the dispensation (explained in Chapter 3) which in
effect allows interest to be exacted even from a Jewish borrower. However, it is still
the case that granting an interest-free loan to a Jew is recommended as an act of
charity, but from a Gentile borrower it is mandatory to exact interest. In fact, many -
though not all - rabbinical authorities, including Maimonides, consider it mandatory
to exact as much usury as possible on a loan to a Gentile.

(3) Lost property. If a Jew finds property whose probable owner is Jewish,
the finder is strictly enjoined to make a positive effort to return his find by
advertising it publicly. In contrast, the Talmud and all the early rabbinical authorities
not only allow a Jewish finder to appropriate an article lost by a Gentile, but actually
forbid him or her to return it. (48) In more recent times, when laws were passed in
most countries making it mandatory to return lost articles, the rabbinical authorities
instructed Jews to do what these laws say, as an act of civil obedience to the state -
but not as a religious duty, that is without making a positive effort to discover the
owner if it is not probable that he is Jewish.

(4) Deception in business. It is a grave sin to practice any kind of deception
whatsoever against a Jew. Against a Gentile it is only forbidden to practice direct
deception. Indirect deception is allowed, unless it is likely to cause hostility towards
Jews or insult to the Jewish religion. The paradigmatic example is mistaken
calculation of the price during purchase. If a Jew makes a mistake unfavorable to
himself, it is one's religious duty to correct him. If a Gentile is spotted making such a
mistake, one need not let him know about it, but say 'I rely on your calculation', so as
to forestall his hostility in case he subsequently discovers his own mistake.

75

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

(5) Fraud. It is forbidden to defraud a Jew by selling or buying at an
unreasonable price. However, 'Fraud does not apply to Gentiles, for it is written: "Do
not defraud each man his brother"; (49) but a Gentile who defrauds a Jew should be
compelled to make good the fraud, but should not be punished more severely than a
Jew [in a similar case].' (50)

(6) Theft and robbery. Stealing (without violence) is absolutely

[90] forbidden - as the Shulhan 'Arukh so nicely puts it: 'even from a Gentile'.
Robbery (with violence) is strictly forbidden if the victim is Jewish. However, robbery
of a Gentile by a Jew is not forbidden outright but only under certain circumstances
such as 'when the Gentiles are not under our rule', but is permitted 'when they are
under our rule'. Rabbinical authorities differ among themselves as to the precise
details of the circumstances under which a Jew may rob a Gentile, but the whole
debate is concerned only with the relative power of Jews and Gentiles rather than
with universal considerations of justice and humanity. This may explain why so very
few rabbis have protested against the robbery of Palestinian property in Israel: it was
backed by overwhelming Jewish power.

Gentiles in the Land of Israel

In addition to the general anti-Gentile laws, the Halakhah has special laws
against Gentiles who live in the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisra'el) or, in some cases,
merely pass through it. These laws are designed to promote Jewish supremacy in that
country.

The exact geographical definition of the term 'Land of Israel' is much disputed
in the Talmud and the talmudic literature, and the debate has continued in modern
times between the various shades of zionist opinion. According to the maximalist
view, the Land of Israel includes (in addition to Palestine itself) not only the whole of
Sinai, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, but also considerable parts of Turkey. (51) The
more prevalent 'minimalist' interpretation puts the northern border 'only' about half
way through Syria and Lebanon, at the latitude of Homs. This view was supported by
Ben~Gurion. However, even those who thus exclude parts of Syria-Lebanon agree
that certain special discriminatory laws (though less oppressive than in the Land of
Israel proper) apply to the Gentiles of those parts, because that territory was included
in David's kingdom. In all talmudic interpretations the Land of Israel includes
Cyprus.

I shall now list a few of the special laws concerning Gentiles in the Land of
Israel. Their connection with actual zionist practice will be quite apparent.

The Halakhah forbids Jews to sell immovable property - fields and houses - in
the Land of Israel to Gentiles. In Syria, the sale of houses (but not of fields) is
permitted.

Leasing a house in the Land of Israel to a Gentile is permitted under two
conditions. First, that the house shall not be used for habitation but for other
purposes, such as storage. Second, that three or more adjoining houses shall not be so

76

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

leased.

These and several other rules are explained as follows:... 'so

[91] that you shall not allow them to camp on the ground, for if they do not possess
land, their sojourn there will be temporary.' (52) Even temporary Gentile presence
may only be tolerated 'when the Jews are in exile, or when the Gentiles are more
powerful than the Jews,' but

when the Jews are more powerful than the Gentiles we are forbidden to let an
idolator among us; even a temporary resident or itinerant trader shall not be allowed
to pass through our land unless he accepts the seven Noahide precepts, (53) for it is
written: 'they shall not dwell in thy land' (54) that is, not even temporarily. If he
accepts the seven Noahide precepts, he becomes a resident alien (per toshav ) but it
is forbidden to grant the status of resident alien except at times when the Jubilee is
held [that is, when the Temple stands and sacrifices are offered]. However, during
times when Jubilees are not held it is forbidden to accept anyone who is not a full
convert to Judaism (per tzedeq). (55)

It is therefore clear that - exactly as the leaders and sympathizers of Gush
Emunim say - the whole question to how the Palestinians ought to be treated is,
according to the Halakhah, simply a question of Jewish power: if Jews have sufficient
power, then it is their religious duty to expel the Palestinians.

All these laws are often quoted by Israeli rabbis and their zealous followers. For
example, the law forbidding the lease of three adjoining houses to Gentiles was
solemnly quoted by a rabbinical conference held in 1979 to discuss the Camp David
treaties. The conference also declared that according to the Halakhah even the
'autonomy' that Begin was ready to offer to the Palestinians is too liberal. Such
pronouncements - which do in fact state correctly the position of the Halakhah - are
rarely contested by the Zionist 'left'.

In addition to laws such as those mentioned so far, which are directed at all
Gentiles in the Land of Israel, an even greater evil influence arises from special laws
against the ancient Canaanites and other nations who lived in Palestine before its
conquest by Joshua, as well as against the Amalekites. All those nations must be
utterly exterminated, and the Talmud and talmudic literature reiterate the genocidal
biblical exhortations with even greater vehemence. Influential rabbis, who have a
considerable following among Israeli army officers, identify the Palestinians (or even
all Arabs) with those ancient nations, so that commands like 'thou shalt save alive
nothing that breatheth'56 acquire a topical meaning. In fact, it is not uncommon for
reserve soldiers called up to do a tour of duty in the Gaza Strip to be given an
'educational lecture' in which they are told that the Palestinians of Gaza are 'like the

[92] Amalekites'. Biblical verses exhorting to genocide of the Midianite57 were
solemnly quoted by an important Israeli rabbi in justification of the Qibbiya
massacre, (58) and this pronouncement has gained wide circulation in the Israeli
army. There are many similar examples of bloodthirsty rabbinical pronouncements
against the Palestinians, based on these laws.

77

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Abuse

Under this heading I would like to discuss examples of halakhic laws whose
most important effect is not so much to prescribe specific anti-Gentile discrimination
as to inculcate an attitude of scorn and hatred towards Gentiles. Accordingly, in this
section I shall not confine myself to quoting from the most authoritative halakhic
sources (as I have done so far) but include also less fundamental works, which are
however widely used in religious instruction.

Let us begin with the text of some common prayers. In one of the first sections
of the daily morning payer, every devout Jew blesses God for not making him a
Gentile. (59) The concluding section of the daily prayer (which is also used in the
most solemn part of the service on New Year's day and on Yom Kippur) opens with
the statement: 'We must praise the Lord of all... for not making us like the nations of
[all] lands ... for they bow down to vanity and nothingness and pray to a god that does
not help.' (60) The last clause was censored out of the prayer books, but in eastern
Europe it was supplied orally, and has now been restored into many Israeli-printed
prayer books. In the most important section of the weekday prayer - the 'eighteen
blessings' - there is a special curse, originally directed against Christians, Jewish
converts to Christianity and other Jewish heretics: 'And may the apostates' (61) have
no hope, and all the Christians perish instantly'. This formula dates from the end of
the 1st century, when Christianity was still a small persecuted sect. Some time before
the 14th century it was softened into: 'And may the apostates have no hope, and all
the heretics (62) perish instantly', and after additional pressure into: 'And may the
informers have no hope, and all the heretics perish instantly'. After the establishment
of Israel, the process was reversed, and many newly printed prayer books reverted to
the second formula, which was also prescribed by many teachers in religious Israeli
schools. After 1967, several congregations close to Gush Emunim have restored the
first version (so far only verbally, not in print) and now pray daily that the Christians
may perish instantly'. This process of reversion happened in the period when the
Catholic Church (under Pope John XXIII)

[93] removed from its Good Friday service a prayer which asked the Lord to have
mercy on Jews, heretics etc. This prayer was thought by most Jewish leaders to be
offensive and even antisemitic.

Apart from the fixed daily prayers, a devout Jew must utter special short
blessings on various occasions, both good and bad (for example, while putting on a
new piece of clothing, eating a seasonal fruit for the first time that year, seeing
powerful lightning, hearing bad news, etc.) Some of these occasional prayers serve to
inculcate hatred and scorn for all Gentiles, We have mentioned in Chapter 2 the rule
according to which a pious Jew must utter curse when passing near a Gentile
cemetery, whereas he must bless God when passing near a Jewish cemetery. A similar
rule applies to the living; thus, when seeing a large Jewish population a devout Jew
must praise God, while upon seeing a large Gentile population he must utter a curse.
Nor are buildings exempt: the Talmud lays down (63) that a Jew who passes near an
inhabited non-Jewish dwelling must ask God to destroy it, whereas if the building is
in ruins he must thank the Lord of Vengeance. (Naturally, the rules are reversed for
Jewish houses.) This rule was easy to keep for Jewish peasants who lived in their own
villages or for small urban communities living in all-Jewish townships or quarters.

78

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Under the conditions of classical Judaism, however, it became impracticable and was
therefore confined to churches and places of worship of other religions (except
Islam). (64) In this connection, the rule was further embroidered by custom: it
became customary to spit (usually three times) upon seeing a church or a crucifix, as
an embellishment to the obligatory formula of regret. (65) Sometimes insulting
biblical verses were also added. (66)

There is also a series of rules forbidding any expression of praise for Gentiles or
for their deeds, except where such praise implies an even greater praise of Jews and
things Jewish. This rule is still observed by Orthodox Jews. For example, the writer
Agnon, when interviewed on the Israeli radio upon his return from Stockholm, where
he received the Nobel Prize for literature, praised the Swedish Academy, but hastened
to add: 'I am not forgetting that it is forbidden to praise Gentiles, but here there is a
special reason for my praise' - that is, that they awarded the prize to a Jew.

Similarly, it is forbidden to join any manifestation of popular Gentile rejoicing,
except where failing to join in might cause 'hostility' towards Jews, in which case a
'minimal' show of joy is allowed.

In addition to the rules mentioned so far, there are many others whose effect is
to inhibit human friendship between

[94] Jew and Gentile. I shall mention two examples: the rule on 'libation wine' and
that on preparing food for a Gentile on Jewish holy days.

A religious Jew must not drink any wine in whose preparation a Gentile had any
part whatsoever. Wine in an open bottle, even if prepared wholly by Jews, becomes
banned if a Gentile so much as touches the bottle or passes a hand over it. The reason
given by the rabbis is that all Gentiles are not only idolators but must be presumed to
be malicious to boot, so that they are likely to dedicate (by a whisper, gesture or
thought) as 'libation' to their idol any wine which a Jew is about to drink. This law
applies in full force to all Christians, and in a slightly attenuated form also to
Muslims. (An open bottle of wine touched by a Christian must be poured away, but if
touched by a Muslim it can be sold or given away, although it may not be drunk by a
Jew.) The law applies equally to Gentile atheists (how can one be sure that they are
not merely pretending to be atheists?) but not to Jewish atheists.

The laws against doing work on the sabbath apply to a lesser extent on other
holy days. In particular, on a holy day which does not happen to fall on a Saturday it
is permitted to do any work required for preparing food to be eaten during the holy
days or days. Legally, this is defined as preparing a 'soul's food' (okhel nefesh ); but
'soul' is interpreted to mean 'Jew', and 'Gentiles and dogs' are explicitly excluded.
(67) There is, however, a dispensation in favor of powerful Gentiles, whose hostility
can be dangerous: it is permitted to cook food on a holy day for a visitor belonging to
this category, provided he is not actively encouraged to come and eat.

An important effect of all these laws - quite apart from their application in
practice - is in the attitude created by their constant study which, as part of the study
of the Halakhah, is regarded by classical Judaism as a supreme religious duty. Thus
an Orthodox Jew learns from his earliest youth, as part of his sacred studies, that

79

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Gentiles are compared to dogs, that it is a sin to praise them, and so on and so forth.
As a matter of fact, in this respect textbooks for beginners have a worse effect than
the Talmud and the great talmudic codes. One reason for this is that such elementary
texts give more detailed explanations, phrased so as to influence young and
uneducated minds. Out of a large number of such texts, I have chosen the one which
is currently most popular in Israel and has been reprinted in many cheap editions,
heavily subsidized by the Israeli government. It is The Book of Education, written by
an anonymous rabbi in early 14th century Spain. It explains the 613 religious

[95] obligations {mitzvot) of Judaism in the order in which they are supposed to be
found in the Pentateuch according to the talmudic interpretation (discussed in
Chapter 3). It owes its lasting influence and popularity to the clear and easy Hebrew
style in which it is written.

A central didactic aim of this book is to emphasize the 'correct' meaning of the
Bible with respect to such terms as 'fellow', 'friend' or 'man' (which we have referred
to in Chapter 3). Thus §219, devoted to the religious obligation arising from the verse
'thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself, is entitled: 'A religious obligation to love Jews',
and explains:

To love every Jew strongly means that we should care for a Jew and his money
just as one cares for oneself and one's own money, for it is written: 'thou shalt love
thy fellow as thyself and our sages of blessed memory said: 'what is hateful to you do
not do to your friend' ... and many other religious obligations follow from this,
because one who loves one's friend as oneself will not steal his money, or commit
adultery with his wife, or defraud him of his money, or deceive him verbally, or steal
his land, or harm him in any way. Also many other religious obligations depend on
this, as is known to any reasonable man.

In §322, dealing with the duty to keep a Gentile slave enslaved for ever
(whereas a Jewish slave must be set free after seven years), the following explanation
is given:

And at the root of this religious obligation [is the fact that] the Jewish people
are the best of the human species, created to know their Creator and worship Him,
and worthy of having slaves to serve them. And if they will not have slaves of other
peoples, they would have to enslave their brothers, who would thus be unable to
serve the Lord, blessed be He. Therefore we are commanded to possess those for our
service, after they are prepared for this and after idolatory is removed from their
speech so that there should not be danger in our houses, (68) and this is the
intention of the verse 'but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule
one over another with rigor', (69) so that you will not have to enslave your brothers,
who are all ready to worship God.

In §545, dealing with the religious obligation to exact interest on money lent to
Gentiles, the law is stated as follows: 'That we are commanded to demand interest
from Gentiles when we lend money to them, and we must not lend to them without
interest,' The explanation is:

And at the root of this religious obligation is that we should not do any act of
mercy except to the people who know God and worship Him; and when we refrain

80

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

from doing merciful

[ 96 ]

deed to the rest of mankind and do so only to the former, we are being tested that
the main part of love and mercy to them is because they follow the religion of God,
blessed be He. Behold, with this intention our reward [from God] when we withhold
mercy from the others is equal to that for doing [merciful deeds] to members of our
own people.

Similar distinctions are made in numerous other passages. In explaining the
ban against delaying a worker's wage (§238) the author is careful to point out that the
sin is less serious if the worker is Gentile. The prohibition against cursing (§239) is
entitled 'Not to curse any Jew, whether man or woman. Similarly, the prohibitions
against giving misleading advice, hating other people, shaming them or taking
revenge on them (§§240, 245, 246, 247) apply only to fellow-Jews.

The ban against following Gentile customs (§262) means that Jews must not
only 'remove themselves' from Gentiles, but also 'speak ill of all their behavior, even
of their dress'.

It must be emphasized that the explanations quoted above do represent
correctly the teaching of the Halakhah. The rabbis and, even worse, the apologetic
'scholars of Judaism' know this very well and for this reason they do not try to argue
against such views inside the Jewish community; and of course they never mention
them outside it. Instead, they vilify any Jew who raises these matters within earshot
of Gentiles, and they issue deceitful denials in which the art of equivocation reaches
its summit. For example, they state, using general terms, the importance which
Judaism attaches to mercy; but what they forget to point out is that according to the
Halakhah 'mercy' means mercy towards Jews.

Anyone who lives in Israel knows how deep and widespread these attitudes of
hatred and cruelty to towards all Gentiles are among the majority of Israeli Jews.
Normally these attitudes are disguised from the outside world, but since the
establishment of the State of Israel, the 1967 war and the rise of Begin, a significant
minority of Jews, both in Israel and abroad, have gradually become more open about
such matters. In recent years the inhuman precepts according to which servitude is
the 'natural' lot of Gentiles have been publicly quoted in Israel, even on TV, by Jewish
farmers exploiting Arab labor, particularly child labor. Gush Emunim leaders have
quoted religious precepts which enjoin Jews to oppress Gentiles, as a justification of
the attempted assassination of Palestinian mayors and as divine authority for their
own plan to expel all the Arabs from Palestine.

While many Zionists reject these positions politically, their standard counter¬
arguments are based on considerations of expediency and Jewish self-interest, rather
than on universally valid

[97] principles of humanism and ethics. For example, they argue that the exploitation
and oppression of Palestinians by Israelis tends to corrupt Israeli society, or that the
expulsion of the Palestinians is impracticable under present political conditions, or
that Israeli acts of terror against the Palestinians tend to isolate Israel internationally.
In principle, however, virtually all Zionists - and in particular 'left' Zionists - share the

81

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

deep anti-Gentile attitudes which Orthodox Judaism keenly promotes.

Attitudes to Christianity and Islam

In the foregoing, several examples of the rabbinical attitudes to these two
religions were given in passing. But it will be useful to summarize these attitudes
here.

Judaism is imbued with a very deep hatred towards Christianity, combined with
ignorance about it. This attitude was clearly aggravated by the Christian persecutions
of Jews, but is largely independent of them. In fact, it dates from the time when
Christianity was still weak and persecuted (not least by Jews), and it was shared by
Jews who had never been persecuted by Christians or who were even helped by them.
Thus, Maimonides was subjected to Muslim persecutions by the regime of the
Almohads and escaped from them first to the crusaders' Kingdom of Jerusalem, but
this did not change his views in the least. This deeply negative attitude is based on
two main elements.

First, on hatred and malicious slanders against Jesus. The traditional view of
Judaism on Jesus must of course be sharply distinguished from the nonsensical
controversy between antisemites and Jewish apologists concerning the
'responsibility' for his execution. Most modern scholars of that period admit that due
to the lack of original and contemporary accounts, the late composition of the
Gospels and the contradictions between them, accurate historical knowledge of the
circumstances of Jesus' execution is not available. In any case, the notion of collective
and inherited guilt is both wicked and absurd. However, what is at issue here is not
the actual facts about Jesus, but the inaccurate and even slanderous reports in the
Talmud and post-talmudic literature - which is what Jews believed until the 19th
century and many, especially in Israel, still believe. For these reports certainly played
an important role in forming the Jewish attitude to Christianity.

According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for
idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All
classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take
responsibility

[98] for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned.

The more popular accounts - which were nevertheless taken quite seriously -
such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above
crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name 'Jesus' was for Jews a symbol of
all that is abominable, and this popular tradition still persists. (70) The Gospels are
equally detested, and they are not allowed to be quoted (let alone taught) even in
modern Israeli Jewish schools.

Secondly, for theological reasons, mostly rooted in ignorance, Christianity as a
religion is classed by rabbinical teaching as idolatry. This is based on a crude
interpretation of the Christian doctrines on the Trinity and Incarnation. All the
Christian emblems and pictorial representations are regarded as 'idols' - even by

82

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

those Jews who literally worship scrolls, stones or personal belongings of 'Holy Men'.

The attitude of Judaism towards Islam is, in contrast, relatively mild. Although
the stock epithet given to Muhammad is 'madman' (meshugga ), this was not nearly
as offensive as it may sound now, and in any case it pales before the abusive terms
applied to Jesus. Similarly, the Qur'an - unlike the New Testament - is not
condemned to burning. It is not honored in the same way as Islamic law honors the
Jewish sacred scrolls, but is treated as an ordinary book. Most rabbinical authorities
agree that Islam is not idolatry (although some leaders of Gush Emunim now choose
to ignore this). Therefore the Halakhah decrees that Muslims should not be treated
by Jews any worse than 'ordinary' Gentiles. But also no better. Again, Maimonides
can serve as an illustration. He explicitly states that Islam is not idolatry, and in his
philosophical works he quotes, with great respect, many Islamic philosophical
authorities. He was, as I have mentioned before, personal physician to Saladin and
his family, and by Saladin's order he was appointed Chief over all Egypt's Jews. Yet,
the rules he lays down against saving a Gentile's life (except in order to avert danger
to Jews) apply equally to Muslims.

[ 99 ]

83

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Chapter 6

Political Consequences

The persistent attitudes of classical Judaism toward non-Jews strongly
influence its followers, Orthodox Jews and those who can be regarded as its
continuators, Zionists. Through the latter it also influences the policies of the State of
Israel. Since 1967, as Israel becomes more and more 'Jewish', so its policies are
influenced more by Jewish ideological considerations than by those of a coldly
conceived imperial interest. This ideological influence is not usually perceived by
foreign experts, who tend to ignore or downplay the influence of the Jewish religion
on Israeli policies. This explains why many of their predictions are incorrect.

In fact, more Israeli government crises are caused by religious reasons, often
trivial, than by any other cause. The space devoted by the Hebrew press to discussion
of the constantly occurring quarrels between the various religious groups, or between
the religious and the secular, is greater than that given any other subject, except in
times of war or of security-related tension. At the time of writing, early August 1993,
some topics of major interest to readers of the Hebrew press are: whether soldiers
killed in action who are sons of non-Jewish mothers will be buried in a segregated
area in Israeli military cemeteries; whether Jewish religious burial associations, who
have a monopoly over the burial of all Jews except kibbutz members, will be allowed
to continue their custom of circumcising the corpses of non-circumcised Jews before
burying them (and without asking the family's permission); whether the import of
non-kosher meat to Israel, banned unofficially since the establishment of the state,
will be allowed or banned by law. There are many more issues of this kind which are
of a much greater interest to the Israeli- Jewish public than, let us say, the
negotiations with the Palestinians and Syria.

The attempts made by a few Israeli politicians to ignore the factors of 'Jewish
ideology' in favor of purely imperial interests have led to disastrous results. In early
1974, after its partial defeat in the Yom Kippur War, Israel had a vital interest in
stopping the renewed influence of the PLO, which had not yet been recognized by the
Arab states as the solely legitimate representative of the Palestinians. The Israeli
government conceived of a plan to support Jordanian influence in

[100] the West Bank, which was quite considerable at the time. When King Hussein
was asked for his support, he demanded a visible quid pro quo. It was arranged that
his chief West Bank supporter, Sheikh Jabri of Hebron, who ruled the southern part
of the West Bank with an iron fist and with approval of then Defense minister Moshe
Dayan, would give a party for the region's notables in the courtyard of his palatial
residence in Hebron. The party, in honor of the king's birthday, would feature the
public display of Jordanian flags and would begin a pro-Jordanian campaign. But the

84

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

religious settlers in the nearby Kiryat-Arba, who were only a handful at the time,
heard about the plan and threatened Prime Minister Golda Meir and Dayan with
vigorous protests since, as they put it, displaying a flag of a 'non-Jewish state' within
the Land of Israel contradicts the sacred principle which states that this land 'belongs'
only to Jews. Since this principle is accepted by all Zionists, the government had to
bow to their demands and order Sheikh Jabri not to display any Jordanian flags.
Thereupon Jabri, who was deeply humiliated, canceled the party and, at the Fez
meeting of the Arab League which occurred soon after, King Hussein voted to
recognize the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinians. For the bulk of
Israeli-Jewish public the current negotiations about 'autonomy' are likewise
influenced more by such Jewish ideological considerations than by any others.

The conclusion from this consideration of Israeli policies, supported by an
analysis of classical Judaism, must be that analyses of Israeli policy-making which do
not emphasize the importance of its unique character as a 'Jewish state' must be
mistaken. In particular, the facile comparison of Israel to other cases of Western
imperialism or to settler states, is incorrect. During apartheid, the land of South
Africa was officially divided into 87 per cent which 'belonged' to the whites and 13 per
cent which was said officially to 'belong' to the Blacks. In addition, officially sovereign
states, embodied with all the symbols of sovereignty, the so-called Bantustans, were
established. But 'Jewish ideology' demands that no part of the Land of Israel can be
recognized as 'belonging' to non-Jews and that 110 signs of sovereignty, such as
Jordanian flags, can be officially allowed to be displayed. The principle of
Redemption of the Land demands that ideally all the land, and not merely, say, 87
per cent, will in time be 'redeemed', that is, become owned by Jews. 'Jewish ideology
prohibits that very convenient principle of imperialism, already known to Romans
and followed by so many secular empires, and best formulated by Lord Cromer: 'We
do not govern Egypt, we govern the governors of Egypt.' Jewish

[101] ideology forbids such recognition; it also forbids a seemingly respectful attitude
to any 'non-Jewish governors' within the Land of Israel. The entire apparatus of client
kings, sultans, maharajas and chiefs or, in more modern times, of dependent
dictators, so convenient in other cases of imperial hegemony, cannot be used by
Israel within the area considered part of the Land of Israel. Hence the fears,
commonly expressed by Palestinians, of being offered a 'Bantustan' are totally
groundless. Only if numerous Jewish lives are lost in war, as happened both in 1973
and in the 1983-5 war aftermath in Lebanon, is an Israeli retreat conceivable since it
can be justified by the principle that the sanctity of Jewish life is more important than
other considerations. What is not possible, as long as Israel remains a 'Jewish state',
is the Israeli grant of a fake, but nevertheless symbolically real sovereignty, or even of
real autonomy, to non-Jews within the Land of Israel for merely political reasons.
Israel, like some other countries, is an exclusivist state, but Israeli exclusivism is
peculiar to itself.

In addition to Israeli policies it may be surmised that the 'Jewish ideology'
influences also a significant part, maybe a majority, of the diaspora Jews. While the
actual implementation of Jewish ideology depends on Israel being strong, this in turn
depends to a considerable extent on the support which diaspora Jews, particularly US
Jews, give to Israel. The image of the diaspora Jews and their attitudes to non-Jews,
is quite different from the attitudes of classical Judaism, as described above. This

85

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

discrepancy is most obvious in English-speaking countries, where the greatest
falsifications of Judaism regularly occur. The situation is worst in the USA and
Canada, the two states whose support for Israeli policies, including policies which
most glaringly contradict the basic human rights of non-Jews, is strongest.

US support for Israel, when considered not in abstract but in concrete detail,
cannot be adequately explained only as a result of American imperial interests. The
strong influence wielded by the organized Jewish community in the USA in support
of all Israeli policies must also be taken into account in order to explain the Middle
East policies of American Administrations. This phenomenon is even more noticeable
in the case of Canada, whose Middle Eastern interests cannot be considered as
important, but whose loyal dedication to Israel is even greater than that of the USA In
both countries (and also in France, Britain and many other states) Jewish
organizations support Israel with about the same loyalty which communist parties
accorded to the USSR for so long. Also, many Jews who appear to be active in
defending human

[102] rights and who adopt non-conformist views on other issues do, in cases
affecting Israel, display a remarkable degree of totalitarianism and are in the
forefront of the defense of all Israeli policies. It is well known in Israel that the
chauvinism and fanaticism in supporting Israel displayed by organized diaspora Jews
is much greater (especially since 1967) than the chauvinism shown by an average
Israeli Jew. This fanaticism is especially marked in Canada and the USA but because
of the incomparably greater political importance of the USA, I will concentrate on the
latter. It should, however, be noted that we also find Jews whose views of Israeli
policies are not different from those held by the rest of the society (with due regard to
the factors of geography, income, social position and so on).

Why should some American Jews display chauvinism, some-times extreme, and
others not? We should begin by observing the social and therefore also the political
importance of the Jewish organizations which are of an exclusive nature: they admit
no non-Jews on principle. (This exclusivism is in amusing contrast with their hunt to
condemn the most obscure non-Jewish club which refuses to admit Jews.) Those who
can be called 'organized Jews', and who spend most of their time outside work hours
mostly in the company of other Jews, can be presumed to uphold Jewish exclusivism
and to preserve the attitudes of the classical Judaism to non-Jews. Under present
circumstances they cannot openly express these attitudes toward non-Jews in the
USA where non-Jews constitute more than 97 per cent of the population. They
compensate for this by ex- pressing their real attitudes in their support of the 'Jewish
state' and the treatment it metes to the non-Jews of the Middle East.

How else can we explain the enthusiasm displayed by so many American rabbis
in support of, let us say, Martin Luther King, compared with their lack of support for
the rights of Palestinians, even for their individual human rights? How else can we
explain the glaring contradiction between the attitudes of classical Judaism toward
non-Jews, which include the rule that their lives should not be saved except for the
sake of Jewish interest, with the support of the US rabbis and organized Jews for the
rights of the Blacks? After all, Martin Luther King and the majority of American
Blacks are non-Jews. Even if only the conservative and Orthodox Jews, who together
constitute the majority of organized American Jews, are considered to hold such

86

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

opinions about the non-Jews, the other part of organized US Jewry, the Reform, had
never opposed them, and, in my view, show themselves to be quite influenced by
them.

Actually the explanation of this apparent contradiction is

[103] easy. It should be recalled that Judaism, especially in its classical form, is
totalitarian in nature. The behavior of supporters of other totalitarian ideologies of
our times was not different from that of the organized American Jews. Stalin and his
supporters never tired of condemning the discrimination against the American or the
South African Blacks, especially in the midst of the worst crimes committed within
the USSR. The South African apartheid regime was tireless in its denunciations of the
violations of human rights committed either by communist or by other African
regimes, and so were its supporters in other countries. Many similar examples can be
given. The support of democracy or of human rights is there- fore meaningless or
even harmful and deceitful when it does not begin with self-critique and with support
of human rights when they are violated by one's own group. Any support of human
rights in general by a Jew which does not include the support of human rights of non-
Jews whose rights are being violated by the 'Jewish state' is as deceitful as the
support of human rights by a Stalinist. The apparent enthusiasm displayed by
American rabbis or by the Jewish organizations in the USA during the 1950s and the
1960s in support of the Blacks in the South, was motivated only by considerations of
Jewish self-interest, just as was the communist support for the same Blacks. Its
purpose in both cases was to try to capture the Black community politically, in the
Jewish case to an unthinking support of Israeli policies in the Middle East.

Therefore, the real test facing both Israeli and diaspora Jews is the test of their
self-criticism which must include the critique of the Jewish past. The most important
part of such a critique must be detailed and honest confrontation of the Jewish
attitude to non-Jews. This is what many Jews justly demand from non-Jews: to
confront their own past and so become aware of the discrimination and persecutions
inflicted on the Jews. In the last 40 years the number of non-Jews killed by Jews is by
far greater than the number of the Jews killed by non-Jews. The extent of the
persecution and discrimination against non-Jews inflicted by the 'Jewish state' with
the support of organized diaspora Jews is also enormously greater than the suffering
inflicted on Jews by regimes hostile to the- Although the struggle against
antisemitism (and of all other forms of racism) should never cease, the struggle
against Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism, which must include a critique of classical
Judaism, is now of equal or greater importance.

Notes and References: Chapt. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Chapter l: A Closed Utopia?

1 Walter Laquer, History of Zionism Schocken Publishers, Tel Aviv, 1974, in Hebrew.

2 See Yedioth Ahronot, 27 April 1992.

3 In Hugh Trevor-Roper, Renaissance Essays, Fontana Press, London, 1985.

4 See Moses Hadas, Hellenistic Culture, Fusion and Diffusion, Columbia University
Press, New York, 1959, especially chapters VII and XX.

Chapter 2: Prejudice and Prevarication

1 The Jews themselves universally described themselves as a religious community or,
to be precise, a religious nation. 'Our people is a people only because of the Torah
(Religious Law)'-this saying by one of the highest authorities, Rabbi Sa'adia Hagga'on
who lived in the 10th century, has become proverbial.

2 By Emperor Joseph II in 1782.

3 All this is usually omitted in vulgar Jewish historiography, in order to propagate the
myth that the Jews kept their religion by miracle or by some peculiar mystic force.

4 For example, in her Origins of Totalitarianism, a considerable part of which is
devoted to Jews.

5 Before the end of the 18th century, German Jews were allowed by their rabbis to
write German in Hebrew letters only, on pain of being excommunicated, flogged, etc.

6 When by a deal between the Roman Empire and the Jewish leaders (the dynasty of
the Nesi ’im) all the Jews in the Empire were subjected to the fiscal and disciplinary
authority of these leaders and their rabbinical courts, who for their part undertook to
keep order among the Jews.

71 write this, being a non-socialist myself. But I will honor and respect people with
whose principles I disagree, if they make an honest effort to be true to their
principles. In contrast, there is nothing so despicable as the dishonest use of
universal principles, whether true or false, for the selfish ends of an individual or,
even worse, of a group.

8 In fact, many aspects of orthodox Judaism were apparently derived from Sparta,
through the baneful political influence of Plato. On this subject, see the excellent
comments of Moses Hadas, Hellenistic Culture, Fusion and Diffusion, Columbia

88

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

University Press, New York, 1959.

9 Including the geography of Palestine and indeed its very location. This is shown by
the orientation of all synagogues in countries such as Poland and Russia: Jews are
supposed to pray facing Jerusalem, and the European Jews, who had only a vague
idea where Jerusalem was, always assumed it was due east, whereas for them it was
in fact more nearly due south.

10 Throughout this chapter I use the term 'classical Judaism' to refer to rabbinical
Judaism as it emerged after about AD 800 and lasted up to the end of the 18th
century. I avoid the term 'normative Judaism', which many authors use with roughly
the same meaning, because in my view it has unjustified connotations.

11 The works of Hellenistic Jews, such as Philo of Alexandria, constitute an
exception. They were written before classical Judaism achieved a position of exclusive
hegemony. They were indeed subsequently suppressed among the Jews and survived
only because Christian monks found them congenial.

12 During the whole period from AD too to 1500 there were written two travel books
and one history of talmudic studies - a short, inaccurate and dreary book, written
moreover by a despised philosopher (Abraham ben-David, Spain, c. 1170).

13 Me'or 'Eynayi'n by 'Azarya de Rossi of Ferrara, Italy, 1574,

14 The best known cases were in Spain; for example (to use their adopted Christian
names) Master Alfonso of Valladolid, converted in 1320, and Paul of Santa Marja,
converted in 1390 and appointed bishop of Burgos in 1415. But many other cases can
be cited from all over west Europe.

15 Certainly the tone, and also the consequences, were very much better than in
disputations in which Christians were accused of heresy - for example those in which
Peter Abelard or the strict Franciscans were condemned.

16 The stalinist and Chinese examples are sufficiently well known. However, it is
worth mentioning that the persecution of honest historians in Germany began very
early. In 1874, H. Ewald, a professor at Goettingen, was imprisoned for expressing
'incorrect' views on the conquests of Frederick II, a hundred years earlier. The
situation in Israel is analogous: the worst attacks against me were provoked not by
the violent terms I employ in my condemnations of Zionism and the oppression of
Palestinians, but by an early article of mine about the role of Jews in the slave trade,
in which the latest case quoted dated from 1870. That article was published before
the 1967 war; nowadays its publication would be impossible.

17 In the end a few other passages also had to be removed, such as those which
seemed theologically absurd (for example, where God is said to pray to Himself or
physically to carry out some of the practices enjoined on the individual Jew) or those
which celebrated too freely the sexual escapades of ancient rabbis.

18 Tractate Berakhot, p. 58b.

89

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

19 'Your mother shall be sore confounded; she that bare you shall be ashamed...',
Jeremiah, 50:12.

20 Published by Boys Town, Jerusalem, and edited by Moses Hyamson, one of the
most reputable scholars of Judaism in Britain.

21 The supposed founders of the Sadducean sect.

22 I am happy to say that in a recent new translation (Chicago University Press) the
word 'Blacks' does appear, but the heavy and very expensive volume is unlikely, as
yet, to get into the 'wrong' hands. Similarly, in early 19th century England, radical
books (such as Godwin's) were allowed to appear, provided they were issued in a very
expensive edition.

23 An additional fact can be mentioned in this connection. It was perfectly possible,
and apparently respectable, for a Jewish scholar of Islam, Bernard Lewis (who
formerly taught in London and is now teaching in the USA) to publish an article in
Encounter, in which he points out many passages in Islamic literature which in his
view are anti-Black, but none of which even approaches the passage quoted above. It
would be quite impossible for anyone now, or in the last thirty years, to discuss in any
reputable American publication the above passage or the many other offensive anti-
Black talmudic passages. But without a criticism of all sides the attack on Islam alone
reduces to mere slander.

Chapter 3: Orthodoxy and Interpretation

1 As in Chapter 2,1 use the term 'classical Judaism' to refer to rabbinical Judaism in
the period from about AD 800 up to the end of the 18th century. This period broadly
coincides with the Jewish Middle Ages, since for most Jewish communities medieval
conditions persisted much longer than for the west European nations, namely up to
the period of the French Revolution. Thus what I call 'classical Judaism' can be
regarded as medieval Judaism.

2 Exodus, 15:11.

3 Ibid., 20:3-6.

4 Jeremiah, 10; the same theme is echoed still later by the Second Isaiah, see Isaiah,
44 -

5 The cabbala is of course an esoteric doctrine, and its detailed study was confined to
scholars. In Europe, especially after about 1750, extreme measures were taken to
keep it secret and forbid its study except by mature scholars and under strict
supervision. The uneducated Jewish masses of eastern Europe had no real knowledge
of cabbalistic doctrine; but the cabbala percolated to them in the form of superstition

90

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

and magic practices.

6 Many contemporary Jewish mystics believe that the same end may be
accomplished more quickly by war against the Arabs, by the expulsion of the
Palestinians, or even by establishing many Jewish settlements on the West Bank. The
growing movement for building the Third Temple is also based on such ideas.

7 The Hebrew word used here - yihud, meaning literally union-in-seclusion - is the
same one employed in legal texts (dealing with marriage etc.) to refer to sexual
intercourse.

8 The so-called Qedusbab Sblisbit (Third Holiness), inserted in the prayer Uva
Letzion towards the end of the morning service. Numbers, 29. 9-10 The power of
Satan, and his connection with non-Jews, is illustrated by a widespread custom,
established under cabbalistic influence in many Jewish communities from the 17th
century. A Jewish woman returning from her monthly ritual bath of purification
(after which sexual intercourse with her husband is mandatory) must beware of
meeting one of the four satanic creatures: Gentile, pig, dog or donkey. If she does
meet any one of them she must take another bath. The custom was advocated (among
others) by Shn'etMusar, a book on Jewish moral conduct first published in 1712,
which was one of the most popular books among Jews in both eastern Europe and
Islamic countries until early this century, and is still widely read in some Orthodox
circles.

11 This is prescribed in minute detail. For example, the ritual hand washing must not
be done under a tap; each hand must be washed singly, in water from a mug (of
prescribed minimal size) held in the other hand. If one's hands are really dirty, it is
quite impossible to clean them in this way, but such pragmatic considerations are
obviously irrelevant. Classical Judaism prescribes a great number of such detailed
rituals, to which the cabbala attaches deep significance. There are, for example, many
precise rules concerning behavior in a lavatory. A Jew relieving nature in an open
space must not do so in a North-South direction, because North is associated with
Satan.

12 'Interpretation' is my own expression. The classical (and present-day Orthodox)
view is that the talmudic meaning, even where it is contrary to the literal sense, was
always the operational one.

13 According to an apocryphal story, a famous 19th century Jewish heretic observed
in this connection that the verse Thou shalt not commit adultery' is repeated only
twice. 'Presumably one is therefore forbidden to eat adultery or to cook it, but
enjoying it is all right.'

14 The Hebrew re'akha is rendered by the King James Version (and most other
English translations) somewhat imprecisely as 'thy neighbor'. See however IISamuel ,
16:17, where exactly the same word is rendered by the King James Version more
correctly as 'thy friend'.

15 The Mishnah is remarkably free of all this, and in particular the belief in demons

91

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

and witchcraft is relatively rare in it. The Babylonian Talmud, on the other hand, is
full of gross superstitions.

16 Or, to be precise, in many parts of Palestine. Apparently the areas to which the law
applies are those where there was Jewish demographic predominance around AD
150-200.

17 Therefore non-zionist Orthodox Jews in Israel organize special shops during
sabbatical years, which sell fruits and vegetables grown by Arabs on Arab land.

18 In the winter of 1945-6,1 myself, then a boy under 13, participated in such
proceedings. The man in charge of agricultural work in the religious agricultural
school I was men attending was a particularly pious Jew and thought it would be safe
if the crucial act, that of removing the board, should be performed by an orphan
under 13 years old, incapable of being, or making anyone else, guilty of a sin. (A boy
under that age cannot be guilty of a sin; his father, if he has one, is considered
responsible.) Everything was carefully explained to me beforehand, including the
duty to say, 'I need this board,' when in fact it was not needed.

19 For example, the Talmud forbids a Jew to enjoy the light of a candle lit by a
Gentile on the sabbath, unless the latter had lit it for his own use before the Jew
entered the room.

20 One of my uncles in pre-1939 Warsaw used a subtler method. He employed a non-
Jewish maid called Marysia and it was his custom upon waking from his Saturday
siesta to say, first quietly, 'How nice it would be if - and then, raising his voice to a
shout,'... Marysia would bring us a cup of tea!' He was held to be a very pious and
God fearing man and would never dream of drinking a drop of milk for a full six
hours after eating meat. In his kitchen he had two sinks, one for washing up dishes
used for eating meat, the other for milk dishes.

21 Occasionally regrettable mistakes occur, because some of these jobs are quite
cushy, allowing the employee six days off each week. The town of Bney Braq (near
Tel-Aviv), inhabited almost exclusively by Orthodox Jews, was shaken in the 1960s by
a horrible scandal. Upon the death of the 'sabbath Goy' they had employed for over
twenty years to watch over their water supplies on Saturdays, it was discovered that
he was not really a Christian but a Jew! So when his successor, a Druse, was hired,
the town demanded and obtained from the government a document certifying that
the new employee is a Gentile of pure Gentile descent. It is reliably rumored that the
secret police was asked to research this matter.

22 In contrast, elementary Scripture teaching can be done for payment. This was
always considered a low-status job and was badly paid.

23 Another 'extremely important' ritual is the blowing of a ram's horn on Rosh
Hashanah, whose purpose is to confuse Satan.

92

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Chapter 4: The Weight of History

1 See, for example, Jeremiah, 44, especially verses 15-19. For an excellent treatment
of certain aspects of this subject see Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, Ktav, USA,
1967.

2 Ezra, 7:25-26. The last two chapters of this book are mainly concerned with Ezra's
efforts to segregate the 'pure' Jews ('the holy seed') away from 'the people of the land'
(who were themselves at least partly of Jewish descent) and break up mixed
marriages.

3 W.F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible lands, Funk & Wagnall, New York, 1955,
P- 103 -

4 It is significant that, together with this literary corpus, all the historical books
written by Jews after about 400 BC were also rejected. Until the 19th century, Jews
were quite ignorant of the story of Massadah and of figures such as Judas
Maccabaeus, now regarded by many (particularly by Christians) as belonging to the
'very essence' of Judaism.

5 Acts, 18:15.

6 Ibid., 25.

7 See note 6 to Chapter 2.

8 Concerning the term 'classical Judaism' see note 10 to Chapter 2 and note 1 to
Chapter 3.

9 Nobel Prize winners Agnon and Bashevis Singer are examples of this, but many
others can be given, particularly Bialik, the national Hebrew poet. In his famous
poem My Father he describes his saintly father selling vodka to the drunkard
peasants who are depicted as animals. This very popular poem, taught in all Israeli
schools, is one of the vehicles through which the anti-peasant attitude is reproduced.

10 So far as the central power of the Jewish Patriarchate was concerned, the deal was
terminated by Theodosius II in a series of laws, culminating in AD 429; but many of
the local arrangements remained in force.

11 Perhaps another characteristic example is the Parthian empire (until AD 225) but
not enough is known about it. We know, however, that the establishment of the
national Iranian Sasanid empire brought about an immediate decline of the Jews'
position.

12 This ban extends also to marrying a woman converted to Judaism, because all
Gentile women are presumed by the Halakhah to be prostitutes.

93

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

13 A prohibited marriage is not generally void, and requires a divorce. Divorce is
nominally a voluntary act on the part of the husband, but under certain
circumstances a rabbinical court can coerce him to 'will' it (kofin oto 'ad she yyomar
rotzeh ani).

14 Although Jewish achievements during the Golden Age in Muslim Spain (1002-
1147) were more brilliant, they were not lasting. For example, most of the magnificent
Hebrew poetry of that age was subsequently forgotten by Jews, and only recovered by
them in the 19th or 20th century.

15 During that war, Henry of Trastamara used anti-Jewish propaganda, although his
own mother, Leonor de Guzman, a high Castilian noblewoman, was partly of Jewish
descent. (Only in Spain did the highest nobility intermarry with Jews.) After his
victory he too employed Jews in the highest financial positions.

16 Until the 18th century the position of serfs in Poland was generally supposed to be
even worse than in Russia. In that century, certain features of Russian serfdom, such
as public sales of serfs, got worse than in Poland but the central Tsarist government
always retained certain powers over the enslaved peasants, for example the right to
recruit them to the national army.

17 During the preceding period persecutions of Jews were rare. This is true of the
Roman Empire even after serious Jewish rebellions. Gibbon is correct in praising the
liberality of Antonius Pius (and Marcus Aurelius) to Jews, so soon after the major
Bar-Kokhba rebellion of AD 132-5.

18 This fact, easily ascertainable by examination of the details of each persecution, is
not rein-remarked upon by most general historians in recent times. An honorable
exception is Hugh Trevor-Roper, The Rise of Christian Europe, Thames and Hudson,
London, 1965, pp.173-4. Trevor-Roper is also one of the very few modern historians
who mention the predominant Jewish role in the early medieval slave trade between
Christian (and pagan) Europe and the Muslim world (ibid., pp.92-3). In order to
promote this abomination, which I have no space to discuss here, Maimonides
allowed Jews, in the name of the Jewish religion, to abduct Gentile children into
slavery; and his opinion was no doubt acted upon or reflected contemporary practice.

19 Examples can be found in any history of the crusades. See especially S. Runciman,
A History of the Crusades, vol I, book 3, chap 1, 'The German Crusade'. The
subsequent defeat of this host by the Hungarian army, 'to most Christians appeared
as a just punishment meted out of high to the murderers of the Jews.'

20 John Stoyc, Europe Unfolding 1 648-8, Fontana, London, p.46.

21 This latter feature is of course not mentioned by received Jewish historiography.
The usual punishment for a rebellious, or even 'impudent' peasant was impalement.

22 The same can be observed in different regions of a given country. For example, in
Germany, agrarian Bavaria was much more antisemitic than the industrialized areas.

94

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

23 'The refusal of the Church to admit that once a Jew always a Jew, was another
cause of pain for an ostentatious Catholic like Drumont. One of his chief lieutenants,
Jules Guerin, has recounted the disgust he felt when the famous Jesuit, Pere du Lac,
remonstrated with him for attacking some converted Jews named Dreyfus.' D.W.
Brogan, The Development of Modern France, vol 1, Harper Torchbooks, New York,
1966, p.227.

24 Ibid..

25 Let me illustrate the irrational, demonic character which racism can sometimes
acquire with three examples chosen at random. A major part of the extermination of
Europe's Jews was carried out in 1942 and early 1943 during the Nazi offensive in
Russia, which culminated in their defeat at Stalingrad. During the eight months
between June 1942 and February 1943 the Nazis probably used more railway wagons
to haul Jews to the gas chambers than to carry much needed supplies to the army.
Before being taken to their death, most of these Jews, at least in Poland, had been
very effectively employed in production of equipment for the German army. The
second, rather remote, example comes from a description of the Sicilian Vespers in
1282: 'Every Frenchman they met was struck down. They poured into the inns
frequented by the French and the houses where they dwelt, sparing neither man nor
woman nor child ... The riots?s broke into the Dominican and Franciscan convents,
and all the foreign friars were dragged out and told to pronounce the word ciciri,
whose sound the French tongue could never accurately reproduce. Anyone who failed
in the test was slain.' (S. Runciman, The Sicilian Vespers, Cambridge University
Press,1958, p. 215.) The third example is recent: in the summer of 1980 - following an
assassination attempt by Jewish terrorists in which Mayor Bassam Shak'a of Nablus
lost both his legs and Mayor Karim Khalaf of Ramallah lost a foot - a group of Jewish
Nazis gathered in the campus of Tel-Aviv University, roasted a few cats and offered
their meat to passers-by as 'shish-kebab from the legs of the Arab mayors'. Anyone
who witnessed this macabre orgy - as I did - would have to admit that some horrors
defy explanation in the present state of knowledge.

26 One of the early quirks of Jabotinsky (founder of the party then led by Begin) was
to propose, in about 1912, the creation of two Jewish states, one in Palestine and the
other in Angola: the former, being poor in natural resources, would be subsidized by
the riches of the latter.

27 Herzl went to Russia to meet von Plehve in August 1903, less than four months
after the hideous Kishinev pogrom, for which the latter was known to be responsible.
Herzl pro- posed an alliance, based on their common wish to get most of the Jews out
of Russia and, in the shorter term, to divert Jewish support away from the socialist
movement. The Tsarist minister started the first interview (8 August) by observing
that he regarded himself as 'an ardent supporter of zionism'. When Herzl went on to
describe the aims of zionism, von Plehve interrupted: 'You are preaching to the
converted'. Amos Elon, Herzel, 'Am 'Oved, 1976 pp.415-9, in Hebrew.

28 Dr Joachim Prinz, Wirjuden, Berlin, 1934, pp. 150-1.

29 Ibid., pp. 154-5.

95

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

30 For example see ibid., p. 136. Even worse expressions of sympathy with Nazism
were voices by the extremist Lohamey Herut Yisra'el (Stern Gang) as late as 1941. Dr
Prinz was, in zionist terms, a 'dove'. In the 1970s he even patronized the US Jewish
movement Breira, until he was dissuaded by Golda Meir.

Chapter 5: The Laws Against Non-Jews

1 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, 'Laws on Murderers' 2,11; Talmudic Encyclopedia,
'Goy'.

2 R. Yo'el Sirkis, Bayit Hadash, commentary on Bey t Josef, yoreh De'ah' 158. The
two rules just mentioned apply even if the Gentile victim is ger toshav, that is a
'resident alien' who has undertaken in front of three Jewish witnesses to keep the
'seven Noahide precepts' (seven biblical laws considered by the Talmud to be
addressed to Gentiles).

3 R. David Halevi (Poland, 17th century), Turey Zahav" on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Yoreh
De'ah' 158.

5 Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Ger' (= convert to Judaism).

6 For example, R. Shabbtay Kohen (mid 17th century), Siftey Kohen on Shulhan
Arukh, 'Yoreh De'ah, 158: 'But in times of war it was the custom to kill them with
one's own hands, for it is said, "The best of Gentiles - kill him!"' Siftey Kohen and
Turey Zahay (see note 3) are the two major classical commentaries on the Shulhan
Arukh.

7 Colonel Rabbi A. Avidan (Zemel), 'Tohar hannesheq le'or hahalakhah' (= 'Purity of
weapons in the light of the Halakhah') in Be'iqvot milhemet yom hakkippurim -
pirqey hagut, halakhah umehqar (In the Wake of the Yom Kippur War - Chapters of
Meditation, Halakhah and Research), Central Region Command, 1973: quoted in
Ha'olam Hazzeh, 5 January 1974; also quoted by David Shaham, 'A chapter of
meditation', Hotam, 28 March 1974; and by Amnon Rubinstein, 'Who falsifies the
Halakhah?' Ma'ariv", 13 October 1975. Rubinstein reports that the booklet was
subsequently withdrawn from circulation by order of the Chief of General Staff,
presumably because it encouraged soldiers to disobey his own orders; but he
complains that Rabbi Avidan has not been court-martialled, nor has any rabbi -
military or civil - taken exception to what he had written.

8 R. Shim'on Weiser, 'Purity of weapons - an exchange of letters' in Niv"
Hammidrashiyyah Yearbook of Midrashiyyat No'am, 1974, pp.29-31. The yearbook
is in Hebrew, English and French, but the material quoted here is printed in Hebrew
only.

9 Psalms, 42:2.

96

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

10 'Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven',
Deuteronomy, 25:19. Cf. also I Samuel, 15:3: 'Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly
destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant
and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'

11 We spare the reader most of these rather convoluted references and quotes from
talmudic and rabbinical sources. Such omissions are marked [...]. The rabbi's own
conclusions are reproduced in full.

12 The Tosafot (literally, Addenda) are a body of scholia to the Talmud, dating from
the 1 lth-i3th centuries.

13 Persons guilty of such crimes are even allowed to rise to high public positions. An
illustration of this is the case of Shmu'el Lahis, who was responsible for the massacre
of between 50 and 75 Arab peasants imprisoned in a mosque after their village had
been conquered by the Israeli army during the 1948-9 war. Following a pro forma
trial, he was granted complete amnesty, thanks to Ben-Gurion's intercession. The
man went on to become a respected lawyer and in the late 1970s was appointed
Director General of the Jewish Agency (which is, in effect, the executive of the zionist
movement). In early 1978 the facts concerning his past were widely discussed in the
Israeli press, but no rabbi or rabbinical scholar questioned either the amnesty or his
fitness for his new office. His appointment was not revoked.

14 Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Hoshen Mishpat' 426.

15 Tractate Avodah Zarah, p. 26b.

16 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Murderer' 4,11.

17 Leviticus, 19:16. Concerning the rendering 'thy fellow', see note 14 to Chapter 3.

18 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Idolatry' 10,1-2.

19 In both cases in section 'Yoreh De'ah' 158. The Shulhan Arukh repeats the same
doctrine in 'Hoshen Mishpat' 425.

20 Moses Rivkes, Be'er Haggolah on Shulhan Arukh, 'Hoshen Mishpat' 425.

21 Thus Professor Jacob Katz, in his Hebrew book Between Jews and Gentiles as well
as in its more apologetic English version Exclusiveness and Tolerance, quotes only
this passage verbatim and draws the amazing conclusion that 'regarding the
obligation to save life no discrimination should be made between Jew and Christian'.
He does not quote any of the authoritative views I have cited above or in the next
section.

22 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Sabbath' 2, 20-21; Shulhan Arukh, 'Orab Hayyim' 329.

23 R 'Aqiva Eiger, commentary on Shulhan Arukh, ibid. He also adds that if a baby is
found abandoned in a town inhabited mainly by Gentiles, a rabbi should be consulted

97

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

as to whether the baby should be saved.

24 Tractate Avodah Zarah, p. 26.

25 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Sabbath' 2,12; Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Orah Hayyim' 330. The
latter text says 'heathen' rather than 'Gentile' but some of the commentators, such as
Turey Zahav, stress that this ruling applies 'even to Ishmaelites', that is, to Muslims,
'who are not idolaters'. Christians are not mentioned explicitly in this connection, but
the ruling must a fortiori apply to them, since - as we shall see below - Islam is
regarded in a more favorable light than Christianity. See also the responsa of Hatam
Sofer quoted below.

26 These two examples, from Poland and France, are reported by Rabbi I.Z. Cahana
(afterwards professor of Talmud in the religious Bar-Ilan University, Israel),
'Medicine in the Halachic post-Talmudic Literature', Sinai, vol 27,1950, p.221. He
also reports the following case from 19th century Italy. Until 1848, a special law in the
Papal States banned Jewish doctors from treating Gentiles. The Roman Republic
established in 1848 abolished this law along with all other discriminatory law against
Jews. But in 1849 an expeditionary force sent by France's President Louis Napoleon
(afterwards Emperor Napoleon III) defeated the Republic and restored Pope Pius lx,
who in 1850 revived the anti-Jewish laws. The commanders of the French garrison,
disgusted with this extreme reaction, ignored the papal law and hired some Jewish
doctors to treat their soldiers. The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Moshe Hazan, who was
himself a doctor, was asked whether a pupil of his, also a doctor, could take a job in a
French military hospital despite the risk of having to desecrate the sabbath. The rabbi
replied that if the conditions of employment expressly mention work on the sabbath,
he should refuse. But if they do not, he could take the job and employ 'the great
cleverness of God-fearing Jews.' For example, he could repeat on Saturday the
prescription given on Friday, by simply telling this to the dispenser. R. Cahana's
rather frank article, which contains many other examples, is mentioned in the
bibliography of a book by the former Chief Rabbi of Britain, R. Immanuel Jakobovits,
Jewish Medical Ethics, Bloch, New York, 1962; but in the book itself nothing is said
on this matter.

27 Hokhmat Shlomoh on Shulhan Arukh, 'Orah Hayyim' 330, 2.

28 R. Unterman, Ha'aretz, 4 April 1966. The only qualification he makes - after
having been subjected to continual pressure - is that in our times any refusal to give
medical assistance to a Gentile could cause such hostility as might endanger Jewish
lives.

29 Hatam Sofer, Responsa on Shulhan Arukh, 'Yoreh De'ah' 131.

30 Op. cit., on Shulhan Arukh, 'Hoshen Mishpat' 194. 31 R. B. Knobelovitz in The
Jewish Review (Journal of the Mizrachi Party in Great Britain), 8 June 1966.

32 R. Yisra'el Me'ir Kagan - better known as the 'Hafetz Hayyim - complains in his
Mishnah Berurah, written in Poland in 1907: 'And know ye that most doctors, even
the most religious, do not take any heed whatsoever of this law; for they work on the

98

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

sabbath and do travel several parasangs to treat a heathen, and they grind
medicaments with their own hands. And there is no authority for them to do so. For
although we may find it permissible, because of the fear of hostility, to violate bans
imposed by the sages - and even this is not clear; yet in bans imposed by the Torah
itself it must certainly be forbidden for any Jew to do so, and those who transgress
this prohibition violate the sabbath utterly and may God have mercy on them for
their sacrilege.' (Commentary on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Orah Hayyim' 330.) The author is
generally regarded as the greatest rabbinical authority of his time.

33 Avraham Steinberg MD (ed.), Jewish Medical Law, compiled from Tzitz Eli 'ezer
(Responsa of R. Eli'ezer Yehuda Waldenberg), translated by David B. Simons MD,
Gefen & Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusalem and California, 1980.

34 Op. cit., p. 39. Ibid., p.41.

35 Ibid., p. 41.

36 The phrase 'between Jew and gentile' is a euphemism. The dispensation is
designed to prevent hostility of Gentiles towards Jews, not the other way around.

37 Ibid.,p.4i2;my emphasis.

38 Dr Falk Schlesinger Institute for Medical Halakhic Research at Sha'arey Tzedeq
Hospital, SeferAsya (The Physician's Book), Reuben Mass, Jerusalem, 1979.

39 By myself in Ha'olam Hazzeh, 30 May 1979 and by Shullamit Aloni, Member of
Knesset, in Ha'aretz, 17 June 1980.

40 Ezekiel, 23:20.

41 Tractate Berakhot, p. 78a.

42 Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Eshetlsh' ('Married Woman').

43 Exodus, 20:17.

44 Genesis, 2:24.

45 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Prohibitions on Sexual Intercourse' 12; 10; Talmudic
Encyclopedia, 'Goy'.

46 Maimonides, op. cit., ibid., 12,1-3. As a matter of fact, every Gentile woman is
regarded as N.Sh.G.Z. - acronym for the Hebrew words niddah, shifhah, goyah,
zonah (unpurified from menses, slave, Gentile, prostitute). Upon conversion to
Judaism, she ceases indeed to be niddah, shifhah, goyah but is still considered zonah
(prostitute) for the rest of her life, simply by virtue of having been born of a Gentile
mother. In a special category is a woman 'conceived not in holiness but born in
holiness', that is born to a mother who had converted to Judaism while pregnant. In

99

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

order to make quite sure that there are no mix-ups, the rabbis insist that a married
couple who convert to Judaism together must abstain from marital relations for three
months.

47 Characteristically, an exception to this generalization is made with respect to
Gentiles holding legal office relating to financial transactions: notaries, debt
collectors, bailiff- and the like. No similar exception is made regarding ordinary
decent Gentiles, not even if they are friendly towards Jews.

48 Some very early (1st century BC) rabbis called this law 'barbaric' and actually
returned lost property belonging to Gentiles. But the law nevertheless remained.

49 Leviticus, 25:14. This is a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase. The King
James Version renders this as 'ye shall not oppress one another'; 'oppress' is
imprecise but 'one another' is a correct rendering of the biblical idiom 'each man his
brother'. As pointed out in Chapter 3, the Halakhah interprets all such idioms as
referring exclusively to one's fellow Jew.

50 Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Hoshen Mishpat' 227.

51 This view is advocated by H. Bar-Droma, Wezeh Gvul Ha'aretz (And This Is the
Border of the Land), Jerusalem, 1958. In recent years this book is much used by the
Israeli army in indoctrinating its officers.

52 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Idolatry' 10, 3-4.

53 See note 2.

54 Exodus, 23:33.

55 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Idolatry' 10, 6.

56 Deuteronomy, 20:16. See also the verses quoted in note 10.

57 Numbers 31:13-20; note in particular verse 17: 'Now there- fore kill every male
among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.'

58 R. Sha'ul Yisra'eli, 'Taqrit Qibbiya Le'or Hahalakhah' (The Qibbiya incident in the
light of the Halakhah'), in Hattorab Wehammedinah, vol 5,1953/4.

59 This is followed by a blessing 'for not making me a slave'. Next, a male must add a
blessing 'for not making me a woman', and a female 'for making me as He pleased'.

60 In eastern Europe it was until recent times a universal custom among Jews to spit
on the floor at this point, as an expression of scorn. This was not however a strict
obligation, and today the custom is kept only by the most pious.

61 The Hebrew word is meshummadim, which in rabbinical usage refers to Jews who

100

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

become 'idolaters', that is either pagan or Christians, but not to Jewish converts to
Islam.

62 The Hebrew word is minim, whose precise meaning is 'disbelievers in the
uniqueness of God'.

63 Tractate Berakhot, p. 58b.

64 According to many rabbinical authorities the original rule still applies in full in
the Land of Israel.

65 This custom gave rise to many incidents in the history of European Jewry. One of
the most famous, whose consequence is still visible today, occurred in 14th century
Prague. King Charles IV of Bohemia (who was also Holy Roman Emperor) had a
magnificent crucifix erected in the middle of a stone bridge which he had built and
which still exists today. It was then reported to him that the Jews of Prague are in the
habit of spitting whenever they pass next to the crucifix. Being a famous protector of
the Jews, he did not institute persecution against them, but simply sentenced the
Jewish community to pay for the Hebrew word Adonay (Lord) to be inscribed on the
crucifix in golden letters. This word is one of the seven holiest names of God, and no
mark of disrespect is allowed in front of it. The spitting ceased. Other incidents
connected with the same custom were much less amusing.

66 The verses most commonly used for this purpose contain words derived from the
Hebrew root shaqetz which means 'abominate, detest', as in Deuteronomy, 7:26:

'thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.' It
seems that the insulting term sheqetz, used to refer to all Gentiles (Chapter 2),
originated from this custom.

67 Talmud, Tractate Beytzah, p. 21a, b; Mishnah Berurah on Shulhan Arukh, 'Orah
Hayyim' 512. Another commentary (Magen Avraham) also excludes Karaites.

68 According to the Halakha, a Gentile slave bought by a Jew should be converted to
Judaism, but does not thereby become a proper Jew.

69 Leviticus, 25:46.

70 The Hebrew form of the name Jesus - Yeshu - was interpreted as an acronym for
the curse may his name and memory be wiped out', which is used as an extreme form
of abuse. In fact, anti-zionist Orthodox Jews (such as Neturey Qarta) sometimes refer
to Herzl as 'Herzl Jesus' and I have found in religious zionist writings expressions
such as 'Nasser Jesus' and more recently 'Arafat Jesus.'

INDEX

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

TOPICS

adultery, capital offense, 87
Aggadah, talmudic Narrative, 39
agriculture, 41, 43;

Jewish contempt for, 42,53;
mixed crops, 44-5

al-Mansur, caliph of Spain, 57 AlexanderVJ Borgia, Pope, 21 Aloni, Shulamit, 27 Amalekites, 84;

law on murder of, 77, H3n;
Palestinians identified with, 91-2
antisemitism, 2,103;

alliance with Zionism, 71-2;
modern, 66-9

apartheid, Jewish ideology compared with, 100 Apuleius, The Golden Ass, 21 Arab League, meeting at
Fez,100 Arab mayors, attempted assassination (1980), H2n Arabs, as enemies, 77;

exploitation of labor of, 5, 96,

see also Islam; Muslims Arba 'ah Turim,

on saving of life, 81

Arendt, Hannah, on Jewish history, 16 army Sec Israeli army Artaxerxes I, King, 50 Australia, 23,
24 Austrian Empire, Jewish Enlightenment in, 70;

Jews in, 15;

and modern Judaism, 51;
serfdom in, 53;
under Metternich, 17

Babylonian exile, return from(537 BC), 50 Bar Mitzvah ceremony, 17 Bayit Hadash, 83 Begin,
Menachem, 35 Ben-Gurion, David, 12;

alliance with French antisemites, 71;

Jewish ideology of, 8-9, 35

Bergman, Hugo Shmuel, philosopher, 28 Beyt Yosef, codification of talmudic law, 75;

on saving of life, 81
Bible, biblical borders of Israel, 9-10;

interpretation of, 36-8;

Kingdoms of Old Testament, 50;

New Testament to be burnt, 21, 98;
polytheism in, 32

Bismarck, Otto von, 70 Black Death, 65 Blacks, racism against, 25, io6n;

US organized Jews' support for, 102

Book of Education, The, 94-5 Book of Knowledge (Maimonidean Code), 24-5 books, anathematized,
18 Bratislava (Pressburg), Jews in,15 bribery, use of, 17,21 British Labor Party, 30 Buber, Martin,
Hassidic apologist, 27~ cabbala (mysticism), spread of, 32-3,107n Canaanites,23, 91 Canada,
support for Israel,101 capital punishment, within Jewish communities, 14-15,17 capitalism, and
modern antisemitism, 66-7 Casimir the Great, of Poland, 61,62 Castile see Spain Catholic church, and
alliance with antisemitism, 68 cemeteries, blessings and curses on, 234,93;

violation of, 378

characteristics,Jewish, and modern antisemitism, 18-19, 67 Charles W of Bohemia, Holy Roman
Emperor, H7-i8n chauvinism, Jewish, 11-12,103 child labor, exploitation of Arab, 96 Chmielnicki
revolt (Ukraine 1648),66,72,73 Christian clergy, as 'friends of the Jews', 29-30 Christianity, and

102

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

campaign against Talmud, 20-2;

Jewish hatred of, 92-3,97,98;
lack of racism in, 67;
persecution of Jews, 97; and
records of Jewish history, 52;
rise of, 51

class, and effect of dispensations, 48,49;

within Jewish communities, 55
classical Judaism, 74,105n, io6n;

decay of monotheism m, 324;
effect of dispensations on, 42, 47-8;
major social features of, 52-6;

Platonic influence on, 12-13;
profit motive in, 49;
repressive nature of, 19-20,
see also Orthodox Judaism; Zionism

clergy, Christian, as 'friends of the Jews', 29-30 clergy, Jewish, powers and exemption from taxes, 54-

5 ;

restrictions on marriage, 59

Code of Talmudic Law (Editio Pn'nceps), 21 conservatism, alliance with antisemitism, 68,
69,70,71 conspiracy theory of history, and modern antisemitism, 67 Constitutional law, against
opposition to 'Jewish state', 3 conversion from Judaism, 20,10511, H7n;

as escape, 15

conversion to Judaism, and definition of Jewish, 4-5;

and entitlement to settle in Israel, 34;
of women, 5,1 i6n

Creation, by First Cause, 33 Cromer, Lord, on imperialism,100 crusades, and persecution of Jews,
65 curses, against buildings, 93;

against Christians, 92-3, H7n;
on graveyards, 24;
on infidels, 24-5,93;
prohibition against, 96;
spitting, 1 i7-i8n

Cyprus, Israel's claims to, 9, 90 Daughter (Shekhinah), and union with Son, 33-4 Dayan, Moshe,
100 Decalogue, talmudic interpretation of, 36-7 deception in business, 89 democracy, lacking in State
of Israel, 2, 3 Deutscher, Isaac, socialist, 53 diaspora, Jews of the,

influence of Talmudic laws on, 2;
uncritical support for Israel, 101-2,
see also USA

dispensations (heterim), 42-7;

and deception of God, 47, 48;
for holy days, 94;
profit motive in, 4~9;
social aspects of, 47-9,
see also Sabbath

divorce, non doctors, employed by rulers, 534;

and Gentile wounded (Israeli army), 27,28;

103

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

and saving of life on Sabbath, 40, 81-7, H5n

Dreyfus affair, 68 Drumont, E., La France Juive, 67, 68 Egypt, claims of Israel to, 9;

Jews in, 51

Eiger, Aqiva (Rabbi), 82 emancipation of Jews, and rise of antisemitism, 70;

within civil states, 14,15-17, 66
England, Jewish community in medieval, 56;

legal rights for Jews in, 14

English Revolution, 69 excuses, for not desecrating Sabbath, 82-3, 84, 85,
see also dispensations

Ezra, Book of, 50 Fatimid empire, and Jews in Egypt, 58,59 'fellow', interpretation of, 37, 95,
H7n First Cause, Creator, 33 'forbidden thoughts', 16,19 formula, significance of, 35 France, Jewish
community in medieval, 56-7;

legal rights for Jews in, 14;

and modern antisemitism, 66, 67~, 71;

and modern Judaism, 51

fraud, against Gentiles, 89 French revolution, 14,15, 69, 73 Galilee, 'Judaization' of, 8 Gaza Strip,
91-2 Gazit, Shlomo, General, 11,12 Gemarah, discussions of Mishnah, 39 Gentiles, 70, 81;

and authority over Jews, 88;
duty to oppress, 96;
fictitious sales to, 434, 45;
gifts to, 88-9;

kings excepted from laws against, 534;

in Land of Israel, 90-2:

murder by, 76;

murder of, 76;

praise of forbidden, 93;

presumed contamination of wine and food by, 94;

as resident aliens, 91, H2n;

saving life of, 1, 80-1, 82, 86;

sexual offenses and status of women, 87-8, n6n;

as slaves, 95

geography, study of forbidden, 18,19,105n Germany, Buber's Hassidic eulogies published in, 28;

Jewish Enlightenment in, 70;

Jewish society in 18th century, 15-16;
and modem antisemitism, 66, 67, 669;

Peasant War (1525), 73;
persecution of historians, I05n,
see also Nazis gifts, as investment, 88

Golden Age, Jewish, in Muslim Spain, 57-8, non Gordon, A.D., 7 Gospels, banned in schools,
98 Greek Orthodox Church, and antisemitism, 68 grinding, banned on Sabbath, 40,45-6 Gush
Emunim, and biblical borders of Israel, 9;

cabbalistic traditions of, 32, 35;
on Islam, 98;

and oppression of Gentiles, 96;
prayers against Christianity, 92-3;
and treatment of Palestinians, 91

Gypsies, Nazi extermination of, 64 Habbad movement, 27 Hadas, Moses, on Platonic influences, 12-
13 Hafetz Hayyim (Rabbi Yisra'el Me'ir Kagan), 1 isn Hagga'on, Sa'adia (Rabbi),I04n Halakhah (legal
system of classical Judaism), 75;

104

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

and Israel's criminal law, 79;
on Muslims, 98;
on saving of life, 80
hands, ritual washing of, 34

Hassidic movement, attitude to non-Jews, 26-8 Hatanya, Habbad movement text, 27 Hellenism,
influence of, 51 Henry II (of Trastamara and Castile),60, non Herzl, Theodor, alliance with von
Plehve, 71, ii2n Hesronot Shas edition of Talmudic Omissions, 23 Hess, Moses, Jewish racist,

30 Hippocratic Oath, 85, 86 historiography, and nationalism,22 history, Jewish ignorance and fear of,
17,18,19-20,109n;

Jewish need to confront,734;
and totalitarianism, 22,105n

History of the Kings of France, 19-20 Hitler, Adolf, Zionist approval of, 71-2 Hokhmat Shlomob, 19th-
century commentary, 83 Holland,censorship of talmudic literature,21;

legal rights for Jews in, 14;
and modern Judaism, 51;

War of Dutch Independencef 156 ~i648),69

Holocaust, the, 64,11m holy days, laws against work on, 94, see also Sabbath hostility against Jews,
avoidance of, laws on money and property, 88-9;

and murder, 76;
and popular rejoicing, 93;
and saving of life, 76,82-3, 85-6
houses, lease of, 90-1;

sale of to Gentiles, 90

human rights, and attitude to non-Jews, 101-2 humor, Jewish sense of, 18 Hungary, serfdom in,
53 Hussein, King, of Jordan, 100 identity cards, 6 immigration laws, Law of Return, 6;

residency rights, 5
imperialism, Lord Cromer's

formula, 100

interest on loans, dispensation for taking, 42-3, 89;

to Gentiles, 89, 95-6

intermarriage, in Spain and Poland, 67, non Iraq, claims of Israel to, 9 Islam, attitude of Judaism to,
98;

forbids expulsion of Jews, 57;
lack of racism in, 67,

see also Arabs; Muslims Israel, ancient kingdom of, 50
Israel, Land of (as defined in Talmud),

laws against Gentiles in, 90-2

Israel Land Authority, 5 Israel, State of, citizenship, 4, 6;

dangers posed by, 2-3, 8;

defined as a Jewish state, 24;

discrimination against non-Jews, 5-6, 234;

dominated by east-European Jews, 64;

laws on murder, 7~9;

religious basis of policies, 1-2, 8-9, 99;

restoration of biblical borders, 9-10;

role in Middle East, 11, 73;

uncritical support for, 102

105

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Israeli army, doctors and Gentile wounded, 27,28;

and religious laws on murder of Gentiles, 76-9,113n;
and Sabbath observance, 46

Israeli Medical Association, 87 Isserles, Moses (Rabbi), 81 Italy, anti-Jewish laws in, lisn; Jews in
medieval, 19,57 Jabotiasky, -, pact with Petlyura, 71 Jabri, Sheikh, of Hebron, 100 Jacquerie revolt
(i 357~)>73 Jesus, talmudic misinterpretation of, 97-8;

talmudic precepts against, 21;

as term of abuse, 118n

Jewish communities, in 18th century, 14-15;

autonomous powers of, 54, 60, 62;
between talmudic and classical periods, 41-2;
liberated by modern states, 15-16,66;
as middle class in feudal countries, 534,56

Jewish Enlightenment(Haskalah), 32,70 Jewish ideology, continuing chauvinism of, 17-18;

imperialism prohibited by, 100-1;

influence of, 11-12, 99,

see also classical Judaism; Judaism

Jewish Medical Law, 85-6 Jewish National Fund (JNF), 5, 7, 8 Jews, categories defined by Talmud,
3940 ;

defined in 1780,14;
defined in Israeli law, 4-5,109n;
social position in eastern Europe, 534
Jordan, claims of Israel to, 9, 90;

relations with State of Israel, 99-100

Judah, ancient kingdom of, 50 Judaism, attitude to Islam, 98;

gap in knowledge of (AD 200-800), 52;
hatred of Christianity, 97-;
historical phases of, 50-2,

see also classical Judaism; Gush Emunim; mysticism; Orthodox Judaism
Kafr Qasim, mass murder at 79 Karaites (heretical sect), 60;

ban on saving life of, 83,85-6

Karo, Rabbi Yosef, Beyt Yosef, 75 Kaufman, Yehezkiel, 28 kibbutz, exclusivism of, 7,17 King, Martin
Luther, Jewish support for, 26,102 kings, exceptions to laws against Gentiles, 534 Kiryat-Arba,

100 Kohens (priestly tribe), 87-8 Koran see Qur'an Kushites (Kushim), transliteration of Blacks,

25 Kuwait, claims of Israel to,9 labor movement, Zionist, and redeemed land, 7 Lahis, Shmu'el,
amnesty for, 113-I4n land, ownership of, 34,5;

redemption of, 78,11,100;
sale of to Gentiles, 43, 90
Law of Return, 6 laws, 'of heaven', 75,

see Talmud learning

see scholarship leavened substances, dispensations for, 45

Lebanon, Israel's claims to, 9,10,90 Lemberg (Lvov), rabbi poisoned in, 17 liberalization, see
emancipation of Jews liberalism, and antisemitism, 69;

Zionist hostility to, 71-2

Likud Party, and restoration of biblical borders, 10 Lior, Dov (Rabbi), 10 lost property, belonging to
Gentiles, 89, n6n Lvov see Lemberg Maccabean period (142-63 BC), 13 Machiavelli, 12 Maimonides,

106

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Moses, Guide to the Perplexed, 25;

Mishneh Torah, 21,24-5,75;

Muslim persecution of, 97;
physician to Saladin, 59, 98;
racism of, 25;
on saving of life, 80

Marx, Karl, on Judaism, 49 marxists, as 'friends of the Jews', 30 meat and milk, injunction against
mixing, 37 medicine see doctors; midwives Meir, Golda, Prime Minister,71,100 Mencius (Chinese
sage), 74 mercy, interpretation of, 96 Mesopotamia, ancient kingdom of, 41,50 Metz (France),

83 Middle East, State of Israel's role in, 11,73 Midianites, Biblical exhortations against,

92 Midrashiyyat No'am college, 77 midwives, for Gentiles, on Sabbath, 82-3,85;

in Turkey, 84

milking on Sabbath, dispensations for, 44 Mishnah, legal code of Talmud,39 Mishnah Berurah,
modern codification of talmudic law, 75, n8n Mishneh Torah (Maimonides' codification of talmudic
law), 21,75;

and work on Sabbath, 84

mixed crops, dispensation for sowing, 44-5, io8n monotheism, in Judaism, 324 More, Sir Thomas,
12 Moses, incarnation as Son, 33 Moshe (soldier), letters to rabbi, 77-9 murder, of Gentiles,76;

of Jews, 75,76

Muslim countries, Jews in medieval, 57-9 Muslims, and contamination of wine by, 94 mysticism,
attitude to non-Jews, 16;

and deception, 269;

Hassidism, 2-8,

see also cabbala; Gush Emunim

Napoleon III, Emperor of France, nsn nationalism, and historiography, 22 Nazis, extermination of
Jews, 64,11 in;

Jewish, H2n

New Testament, public burning of, 21,98 Nicaragua, Israeli role in, 73 Nicholas I, of Russia, 16-
17 Noahide precepts, 91, H2n non-Jews, 'friends of the Jews', 29-31;

in Jewish mysticism,16;

and redeemed land, 7;

used for work on Sabbath,44, 45-7,

see also Gentiles

Occupied Territories, Israeli regime in, 2;

land 'redemption' in, 8

Old Testament, and ancient kingdoms, 50 organizations, exclusiveness of Jewish, 102 Orthodox
Judaism, 13,32;

corrupting influence of, 48-9,
see also classical Judaism; Zionism

Ottoman Empire, Jews in, 58-9, 70 Palestine, ancient kingdom of, 41, 50;

British Labor party plans for, 30;

PLO, 99-100 Palestinians, religious duty to expel, 91-2,96;

Zionist hostility to, 29, 72
papacy, liberalism of, 21;

107

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

and persecution of Jews, 65-6

Parthion Empire, lion Patriarch, Jewish, in Roman Empire, 54-5, non Paul, St, 51 payment, for work
on Sabbath, 47 peasants, absent from classical Judaism, 52-3;

Jewish contempt for, 42, 72,10911;
oppression by Jews in Poland, 63;

State of Israel's oppression of, 73

Pedro I, of Castile, 60 Pentateuch, talmudic interpretations of, 37 persecution of Jews, 64-6,97,
lion Persian Empire, 50,51 Peruvian tribe, converted to Judaism, 34 Petlyura, pact with Jabotinsky,
71 Pharisees, 51 Philo of Alexandria, I05n Plato, 12-13, t04-5n Plehve, Count von, alliance with
Herzl,7i, ii2n PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization),99-100 pogroms, in Tsarist Russia, 65 Poland,
dispensation on interest-taking, 42-3;

Jewish communities in, 14,17,55, 614;

Royal Towns, 62;

serfdom in, 53, lion;

treating Gentiles on Sabbath, 83

Popper, Karl, The Open Society and Its Enemies, 13,18 popular movements, and opposition to Jews,
60-1,64, 65-6;

racism not a factor in, 73

Portugal, 59, see also Spain Prague, crucifix on bridge, H7-i8n prayers, against Gentiles, 92-3, H7n;

morning, for union of Son and Daughter, 34;
superstitious use of, 48;
to propitiate Satan, 34

Pressburg (Bratislava), Jews in, 15 priests see clergy primary intention, and ban on work on Sabbath,
86 Prinz, Dr Joachim, and ideology of racial purity, 71-2 profit motive, in dispensations,

469 Protestantism, and alliance with antisemitism, 68 Prussia, emancipation of Jews in, 70; serfdom
in, 53 Pugachev rebellion, Russia, 73 'purity of weapons', 78, 79, H3n Qibbiya massacre, 92 Qur'an,
not condemned by Judaism, 98 rabbinical courts, Gentile witnesses in, 88;

of Jerusalem, 1;
powers of, 14-15

racial purity, ideology common to Nazism and Zionism, 71-2 racism, against non-Jews, 2, 69;

irrationality of, 11 i-i2n;
pro-Jewish among non-Jews, 29-31

Reformation, intellectual honesty in, 21 Religions, Ministry of (State of Israel), 21 religious
fanaticism, dangers of, 29 religious toleration, in early Judaism, 50-1 Richard I, King of England,

65 ritual, importance of, 35,107n Rivkes, Moses (Rabbi), liberalism of, 81 robbery (with violence), of
Gentiles, 90 Roman Empire, Jewish religious toleration in, 51,lion;

legal position of Jewry in, 54-5

Romania, emancipation of Jews in' 70 Rosten, Leo, The Joys of Yiddish, 26 Russia, censorship of
talmudic literature, 21, 23;

emancipation of Jews in, 70;
persecution of Jews in, 65;
serfdom in, 53,73, non

Ryazin, Stenka, rebellion of Russian peasants, 73 Sabbath, dispensations for milking on, 44;

saving of life on, 81-7;

Talmud's definitions of work forbidden on, 40-1, 84;
use of telephone on, 1,
see also dispensations

Sabbath-Goy, dispensations for, 45-7, io8-9n sabbatical year, dispensation for, 434,

108

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

io8n Sadduceans,5i, io6n Saladin, toleration of Jews, 59, 98 Satan, propitiation of, 34;

role of, 33,107n

Saudi Arabia, claims of Israel to, 9 saving of life, 80-1, H4n;
on Sabbath, 81-7

Schneurssohn, M.M. (Rabbi), 27 scholars, deception by, 24-6 scholarship, religious textbooks, 94-5;

restricted in classical Judaism, 18,19-20,105n, I09n,
see also history

Scholem, Gershom, i6n schools, Gospels banned in, 98;

Talmudic omissions taught in, 234 </DL>

Seljuk empire, 58 serfdom, in eastern Europe, 52-3;

in Poland,61, lion;
in Russia, 53, 73, lion

sexual offenses, Halaldiab law on, 87-B Sharon, Arid, 10 Shaygets (sheqetz),

definition of, 26, n8n

Shazar, President, Habbad supporter, 27 Shekhinah see Daughter Shevet Musar, on moral conduct,
I07n Shmu'el Hannagid, of Granada, 57-8 Shulban 'Arukh, codification of talmudic law, 75;

on saving of life, 81,82

Sicilian Vespers (1282), m-i2n Sinai, claimed by State of Israel, 9,10,90 Sirkis, Yo'el (Rabbi),Bayit
Hadash, 83 Sixtus W, Pope, 21 slave revolutions, 73 slave trade, Jewish role in, inn, 10511 slaves,
Gentile, 95,105n Slavs, Nazi extermination of, 64 socialism, and antisemitism, 69 socialists, racism of
Jewish, 30, 53 Sofer, Moshe (Rabbi) ('Hatam Sofer'), 15;

responsa, 83-5

Son (Holy Blessed One), and union with Daughter, 33-4 South Africa, Bantustans in 100;

and human rights, 103

Spain, Jewish Golden Age, 57-8, lion

Jews in, 14-15, 59-61,105n;
massacre of Jews (i39n),65-6

Stalin, Joseph, 103 Steinsalz, 'Adin (Rabbi), 24 Strasbourg, persecution of Jews, 65 Suez War (1956),
8-9 superstition, lion;

of Polish Jews, 63 </DL>

Syria, ancient kingdom of, 50;

claimed by State of Israel, 9, 90

Tabernacles, feast of, 34 Talmud, Babylonian, 39,41, 75 Talmud, Jerusalem(Palestinian), 39 Talmud
and talmudic law, attacks on Christianity, 20-1, 234, io6n;

Christian attacks on, 20-2;
exhortations to genocide, 91;
and interpretation of Bible, 36-8;
and profit motive, 49;
on saving of life, 80;
structure of, 3942,

see also Mishneb Torah; Shulhan 'Arukh
Talmudic Encyclopedia, 75 talmudic literature, 39;

109

Jewish History, Jewish Religion

censorship of, 21,

see also Aggadah; Gemarah; Mishnah; Talmud

Talmudic Omissions, 23 tax collectors, Jews as, 60, 62 taxation, Jewish clergy exempt from,

54 technology, effect on Sabbath observance, 45-6 Temples,building and destruction of, 33 theft,
talmudic interpretation of, 36-7,90 Theodosius I, Emperor, 54 Toldot Yehsu, on Jesus, 98 Torah see
Mishneb Torah Torquemada, Tomas de, Inquisitor, 61 totalitarianism, and deception, 29;

in Israeli-Jewish community, 10,103
travel, on Sabbath, 84-5 Trevor-Roper, Hugh,

'Sir Thomas More and Utopia', 12;

The Rise of Christian Europe, 110-un </DL>
Turkey, claims of Israel to, 9, 90;

midwives in, 84

Ukraine, Chmielnicki revolt (1648),66, 73 universities, disputations in, 21, losn USA, and Buber's
works on Hassidism, 28;

Israeli influence in, 3;
non-Jewish 'friends of the Jews', 30;
predominance of east- European Jews, 64;
support for Israel, 101;

translation of Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed, 25
USSR, and human rights, 103;

immigrants from, 6

virgin, Talmud's definition of, 41 wages, delaying,96 Waldenberg, Eli'ezer Yehuda (Rabbi),
85 washing, of hands, 34,107n;

ritual bathing, I07n

Weiser, Shim'on (Rabbi), letters to soldier Moshe, 77-9 West Bank, land restricted to Jews, 34;

oppression of Palestinians, 29;
and relations with Jordan, 100
women, midwives, 82-5;

status of Gentile, 87-8, n6n;
status of Jewish, 88

work, types defined in Talmud, 40 work, right to, discrimination against non-Jews, 5 World Zionist
Organization^ xenophobia, and antisemitism, 68 Ximines, Cardinal, Inquisitor, 61 Yad
Le'akhimorganisation 21 Yemen,Jews in, 52 Yiddish, inaccuracy of glossary of, 26;

literature in, 70

Yom Kippur War, 99 Zionism, alliance with antisemitism, 71-2;

and hatred of peasants, 53;

influence in State of Israel, 13, 51, 99;

influences on, 1-2, 35; and laws against Gentiles, 90-1;

nostalgia for closed society, 19;

and political expediency, 97;

as response to antisemitism, 69-71,

see also classical Judaism; Orthodox Judaism

110